When Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, she vowed to beat Republican candidate Donald Trump and assured she would, like primary rival Bernie Sanders, put progressive issues “front and center, where they belong.”
The crowd went wild, and, in that moment, many seemed to forget about their previous criticisms. However, Clinton’s promise doesn’t match her track record. Clinton has a history of moderate and right-leaning ideals that do not align with her party. Although she is absolutely better than Trump, she stands as no more than the lesser of two evils.
As a young woman, Clinton was an active Young Republican and a “Goldwater Girl.” Former U.S. senator Barry Goldwater was a staunch right-winger and co-authored the novel The Conscience of a Conservative. He also voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the same year he ran a losing presidential campaign, which Clinton supported.
According to Clinton’s memoir Living History, she liked Goldwater because he “swam against the political tide,” but his stance on segregation should have been a deal breaker.
As she evolved into a Democrat, Clinton’s views did not completely transform with her. While more progressive liberals began to turn the tide on social and foreign policy issues, she treaded slowly behind.
Clinton arrived late to the game on supporting same-sex marriage and medicinal marijuana legalization while backing the war in Iraq and military intervention in Afghanistan. In fact, she still shows many tendencies of a war hawk.
“Her affinity for the armed forces is rooted in a lifelong belief that the calculated use of military power is vital to defending national interests, that American intervention does more good than harm and that the writ of the United States properly reaches, as Bush once put it, into ‘any dark corner of the world.’ Unexpectedly, in the bombastic, testosterone-fueled presidential election of 2016, Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race,” journalist Mark Landler said in a New York Times article adapted from his book Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power.
Landler’s characterization of Clinton is accurate, and there is good reason to worry about what foreign policy will look like if she’s elected. However, no matter how bad Clinton’s strategies might be, Trump’s would be far worse.
Electing Clinton as president means our country could fall back to a more aggressive military than we have seen over the past eight years, but a Trump presidency brings a more complex issue to the table. While we know what to expect from Clinton, we have no idea what Trump will do if he becomes the most powerful man in the world. We cannot trust Trump with control over the country’s diplomacy, military and weapons of mass destruction.
Bernie Sanders has the right idea. Though his criticism of Clinton has been sharp, he still endorses Clinton in the runoff because she “must become the next preisdent of the United States” over Trump. The only way to enact the change people want is to elect a president whose ideals advance said change. Clinton may be unexceptional on many issues, but it is important to not elect someone worse to prove a point.
When the election rolls around, suck it up and vote for Clinton. Putting a man like Trump in the world’s highest office is irresponsible and selfish, and not voting or going third party only helps him. Clinton may only be the lesser of two evils, but do not forget who is the worse of the two. She may not be the best president or even a good one, but Trump will be a disaster that America will regret.
Lynne Bunch is an 18-year-old mass communication freshman from Terrytown, Louisiana.