Don’t listen to what they say, look at what they do

He is blunt, he is insulting, he is a racist, and he is rich. Yet, he is the leading Republican candidate for the office of President of the United States. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, he is no other than Donald Trump.

The Donald’s candidacy has caused a panic in the U.S. Both the Republicans and the progressives in the U.S. have organized to stop Trump. It appears that Mr. Trump is doing more to unite the people of the U.S. than any other candidate.

Trump’s comments have successfully alienated women, Latinos, Muslims, and African-Americans. He has become a symbol of white supremacy and privilege. One might ask, “why does that bother the Republicans, they are, in fact, the white man’s party”? Well, that’s not the way things work in Washington where you do what you have to do, but you never expose how the political game is played. This is not only true of the Republican Party but, possibly even more so with the Democrats.

Trump has labeled Mexicans who enter the U.S. as rapists and criminals and advocates for a multi-billion dollar wall to be built along the border between Mexico and the U.S. to keep these “undesirables” out. Potential voters in the U.S. have expressed their justifiable rage over his rhetoric and have begun organizing demonstrations at some of his rallies and have successfully shut down some of them.

So far, Trump’s comments are nothing more than rhetoric, dangerous rhetoric, but rhetoric nonetheless. But, where is the rage and organizing against the Obama who is responsible for deporting more migrants than any other president in U.S. history. People have been forced to return to their own countries, many of which are violent and dangerous, and, in many cases, families have been torn apart and parents and their children having to separate.

Trump doesn’t stop there. He has other solutions to problems that face this country. He would deal with the threat of “terrorism” by having a system that quickly and easily identifies Muslims. Someone ought to inform him that Hitler solved that problem during WW2 when he had Jews wear yellow armbands.

Again, so far this is nothing but inflammatory rhetoric. Obama, on the other hand, has taken action against Muslims. His drone program has resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent, ordinary citizens, many of them women and children. Still, no one has organized to confront and demand that Obama stop this wanton killing of Muslims. Why? Because their rhetoric is politically correct.

A few years ago, Glenn Ford, editor in chief of Black Agenda Report, during a segment on Amy Goodman’s program, Democracy Now!, was asked if he sees Barack Obama, who was running against Mitt Romney, as the “lesser of two evils.” Ford’s response was quite illuminating as he stated, “He is not the lesser of two evils, he is the more effective evil.”

While Trump draws attention to himself with his well known bluster, the more effective evils continue their work, saying the correct things but, carrying out the imperialistic and capitalistic agenda.

The greatest beneficiary of Trump’s candidacy is Hillary Clinton, the darling of Wall Street and well established war monger and the candidate most likely to get the Democratic nomination. She will continue to make progressive noises but those who have been paying attention should recognize that her record and history in public life has been anything but progressive.

The Republicans know this and the Democrats are salivating in anticipation. It is Trump’s presence that gives Hillary the advantage . . . his outrageous rhetoric will drive voters to Hillary.

Many people don’t like or trust Hillary, but Trump scares the hell out of them. The dynamics of a showdown between Hillary and Donald will very likely result in large numbers of independents moving to the Democratic tent, not to support Hillary but to stop Donald. The Democratic tent is where the lesser evils reside . . . They “feel our pain,” they smile nicely, they play saxophone, sing, dance, etc., they’re just regular folks.

Except, it is the Democrats (the Obama administration) who have carried on years of imperialistic wars in the Middle East; it is under the rule of the Democrats that police around the country have been militarized; it is under the Democrats that the range and difference of income and wealth between the elite and working class has continued to widen; it is under the Democrats that NAFTA originated, an agreement that helped move thousands of jobs out of the U.S.; the Democrats now threaten to implement TPP, another trade agreement that will continue to place U.S. workers in competition with low wage workers in the global market and will undoubtedly continue to cause the loss of jobs here in the U.S.

Let’s take a closer look at the “Lesser” or “more effective” so we better understand who we are really voting for. Hillary describes herself, as a young woman, being a Goldwater girl. Goldwater was an ultra right-wing American politician and businessman who was a five-term United States Senator from Arizona (1953–65, 1969–87) and the Republican Party‘s nominee for President of the United States in the 1964 election. He fought against the New Deal, labor unions, and the “welfare state” and like Trump, his rhetoric frightened the electorate.

This election’s “Lesser” also served on Wal-Mart’s board of directors for several years and has refused to publicly denounce Wal-Mart’s pay scale and anti-union policies. Alice Walton, the daughter of Sam Walton, Wal-Mart’s founder, gave Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic National Committee Victory Fund $353,000 in December, 2015. If Hillary is elected, will Alice Walton expect something in return for her magnanimous gift?

Where does “Lesser” stand on other issues? In January 2000, Hillary stated, “Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship.”

In 2013, Hillary voiced her support of gay marriage after more than a decade opposing it. Is her candidacy for the White House a factor?

Last May, Hillary expressed her support for declaring amnesty for undocumented immigrants, and called for a “path to full and equal citizenship” for the more than 12 million illegal immigrants.

This was a dramatic shift for someone who had not only maintained a silence about Obama’s executive action, but also previously opposed drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Obama’s executive order would have protected more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. Obama’s plan to give legal status to those 4 million immigrants included only those who have been in the country for at least five years and are parents of U.S. citizens.

Hillary, for several years, has expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In 2010, she commented, ”We want to realize the benefits from greater economic integration. In order to do that, we have to be willing to play. To this end . . . we’re pursuing a regional agreement with the nations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we know that that will help create new jobs and opportunities here at home.”

In 2011, she stated, “The United States is also making important progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will bring together nine APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) economies in a cutting-edge, next generation trade deal, one that aims to eliminate all trade tariffs by 2015 while improving supply change, saving energy, enhancing business practices both through information technology and green technologies.”

And, then, in 2012, “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.”

In 2015, “Lesser” begins to equivocate, refusing to take a clear cut position on the TPP. Lo and behold, as a candidate for president, she has reached the conclusion that she cannot support the TPP.

How did her descriptions early on, “exciting,” “innovative,” “ambitious,” “groundbreaking,” “cutting-edge,” “high-quality,” “high-standard” and “gold standard” lead to expressions like “some concerns,” and now she has said she outright doesn’t support the deal as it stands? Why did she become so concerned as a presidential candidate when she made glowing statements of support prior to her candidacy?

As recently as 2008, Clinton was attacking Barack Obama for his opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, using it as an example that he was too liberal to win the Democratic nomination.

In 1994, Bill Clinton sponsored a tough on crime bill that resulted in increased prison sentences, reduced parole opportunities and early release. Hillary’s response to this legislation was, “We need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders, we need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.” And, she got her wish. The U.S. now has over 2 million men and women, mostly black and Latino, incarcerated, many for non-violent crimes. She also referred to these young black and Latino men and women as “super predators.”

After decades of silently witnessing the damage this legislation has brought to many communities of color and Latino communities, what has allowed “Lesser,” as a presidential candidate, to suddenly change her mind and admit a mistake?

Hillary voted to support the invasion of Iraq. She now admits it was a mistake.

Hillary was a major influence, as secretary of state, in the decision to bomb Libya and boasts (“we came, we saw, he died”) of the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi, an elected head of state. As a result, Libya is in total chaos and experiencing a serious humanitarian crisis and is currently becoming the next home field for ISIS.

Hillary made it clear that she supported the coup or bloody overthrow of Ukraine’s Yanukovych government, a government democratically elected. The problem was that Yanukovych favored continued relations with Russia rather than NATO. The new regime, supported by the U.S. and Hillary, is one that is dominated by neo-Nazis. Does anyone remember WW2? I thought the Nazis were the enemy and the Russians our ally.

“Lesser” also openly admits to supporting the current Honduras government that came to power after the 2009 military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. Unfortunately, supporting fascistic coup governments was a pattern during her tenure as a Secretary of State.

With all the flip-flops, what can we believe about Hillary? Her gut responses appear to be more in line with hard core conservatives while her political, thought through responses seem to reflect a progressive bent.

So, please explain how voting for the “lesser of two evils” has benefitted the people. To borrow from Glenn Ford, I don’t believe Hillary is the lesser of two evils, but rather the more effective evil.

GOD BLESS AMERIKA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA.

Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.