First a bit of an overview of the common issues preventing my intellectual and activist idols from voting for Hillary. She is openly supporting a pro-war US military interventionism [see her pro-war foreign policy & foreign policy tragedy-causing record], coup d’ etats , rigging elections in other countries, and due media control and corruption. And having media on her side, she can easily hide her past through spin. “The public” consists mainly of people not truly following politics or having time, energy or other resources to dig deeper. So they just accept the mainstream narrative. Here’s “how Hillary Clinton backers deployed faux feminism and privilege politics to divert attention from her destructive policies“.
Here’s Zizek putting the above in a framework:
The leftist call for justice tends to be combined with struggles for women’s and gay rights, for multiculturalism and against racism. The strategic aim of the Clinton consensus is clearly to dissociate all these struggles from the leftist call for justice, which is why the living symbol of this consensus is Tim Cook. Cook, the CEO of Apple, proudly signed a pro-LGBT letter to North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory and can now easily forget about hundreds of thousands of Foxconn workers in China assembling Apple products in slave conditions. He made his big gesture of solidarity with the underprivileged by demanding the abolition of gender-segregated bathrooms….
Trump is not the dirty water one should throw out to keep safe the healthy baby of U.S. democracy. He is the dirty baby who needs to be thrown out to make us believe that we got rid of the dirt, i.e., in order to make us forget the dirt that remains, the dirt that lurks beneath the Hillary consensus. The message of this consensus to the Left is: You can get everything, we just want to keep the essentials, the unencumbered functioning of the global capital. With this frame, President Barack Obama’s “Yes, we can!” acquires a new meaning: Yes, we can concede to all your cultural demands, without endangering the global market economy—so there is no need for radical economic measures.
“This is why WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is right in his crusade against Clinton, and the liberals who criticize him for attacking her, the only person who can save us from Trump, are wrong,” Zizek added. “The thing to attack and undermine now is precisely this democratic consensus against the villain.”
And here’s the list of statements and arguments, in order of decreasing awesomeness:
- Tariq Ali destroys the ‘Clinton as a lesser evil’ idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdnp29K8db8
- … and so does Cornell West: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/18/why_a_member_of_the_democratic
- …and Assange:
Hillary lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS,” Assange wrote on WikiLeaks in February 2016. “She’s a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people,” he added, in reference to a video of Clinton celebrating the overthrow of Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi. In an interview with CBS News, Clinton laughed, “We came, we saw, he died.””) http://observer.com/2016/06/why-julian-assange-doesnt-want-hillary-clinton-to-be-president/
- Zizek would vote for Trump and considers him a lesser danger: https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10154211377601939/
- Not that I am a Kantian, but Kant would obviously never have voted for Clinton or Trump, as voting for a lesser evil is against Kant’s Categorical imperative & hence immoral.
- Nasim Taleb will not vote for Clinton:
Ethics dictates one should vote according to principles, not whether the vote matters. Why I am morally obligated to vote for the third party candidate. (slip: “preferences for principles”) http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000565038 (See the FB status here)
- Even Edward Snowden that Trump mentioned in connection with “execution still being a possibility” is suggesting voting for a third candidate. Let’s ask ourselves why would he risk death rather than vote for Clinton… https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/789574275518828544
- Bertrand Russel won’t vote for Clinton either, not just because he is dead, but because a passionate pacifist would never have allowed himself to support Clinton.
Unlike Clinton and Trump, and most of their unreserved supporters, these are all the people fighting for a better world, every day, for years. It’s a bit funny that typical pro-Clinton FB supporters are apolitical people exposed to the mainstream media propaganda, and thus overwhelmed with Trump-crap. This got them to engage in “saving the world” by arguing that people should vote for “the lesser evil”… This is a wrong idea that can only survive in the minds unaware of the Clinton crimes, only some of which were outlined above. Furthermore, as the Kantian link above beautifully explains, even if Clinton was a lesser evil, voting for her would be not just wrong strategically, but immoral too.