For a short time, Bernie Sanders seemed like a breath of fresh air from the stale status quo. Those days appear to be gone. Not only is Bernie going to campaign for Hillary, but he actually said “I look forward to it.”
I could go on about ways in which Hillary Clinton may be as bad as Trump (if not actually worse), but I’ll keep it relatively short. Let’s just say she never met a US war she didn’t like. As Bernie famously noted, she was really into Henry Kissinger’s ways of doing things. I could also note how she was on WalMart’s board of directors for six years, if you want a simple yet clear picture of how different she is from a Bernie Sanders-type.
Now I’d like to mention a gross article by Alternet. It claims that calling Hillary a war monger and Wall Street puppet is uniquely sexist. The argument is that holding her to a higher standard than the men before her is sexist (seriously, read the article). I would say a big fat “No” to that silly assumption, and note how there’s a higher standard I would want from any politician regardless of their genitalia, and that Hillary should indeed be better than the candidates who showed up before her.
But you know what? If there’s any good aspect of sexism, that would be it anyway. Let’s run with their premise and see how it pans out logically. If you ask me, there’s an immediate speed bump: If this alleged sexism of higher expectations could in fact make Hillary a better, saner choice for President than she seems to be today, then let me be the first to wear the label of “sexist pig” for wanting her to be better than she’s been, and better than all the men who were President. Frankly, I doubt I’m alone in that regard. Honestly, I could care less that she’s a she. I care that I don’t like her OR Trump, and personally will vote for neither (sorry). But, sure, why not actually say she should be a better candidate because she’s a woman? We’ve had men there and they have often done lousy or evil things. If that is indeed a uniquely tough standard, then being able to meet it would only make her a more uniquely qualified candidate. This is a case where sexism would mean reduced war, less corporate cronyism, and less shifty relationships with despotic and/or warlike countries and terrorist groups. Maybe it’s good that I’m just thinking with my schlong here.
I don’t want to sound like I’m on a big moral high horse. I’m not perfect either. However, my imperfections hardly involve policy decisions which impact the entire world. She should be better than me. Knowing that she probably won’t be, I don’t look forward to more of her campaigning, unlike Bernie. And I think he should have just dropped out with grace, shrugged his shoulders and said, “Well, I tried.” Now he’ll have a much harder time saying “I told you so” if Hillary wins and continues down the path of never ending wars and corporate degradation of the social fabric.
This is all unless a miracle happens and my “sexist” higher standards for Hillary are realized. I think she’ll likely be equal to the same horrible crap that came before, though. It’s not the best way to challenge gender expectations, but the lowest common denominator is an equality standard of sorts, I suppose.