Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two worst candidates ever to run for the U.S. presidency. In a Gallup poll from Sept. 26, only 33 percent said that Clinton was “honest and trustworthy,” compared with 35 pecent for Trump. Polls from the summer showed that over half of the electorate believes that Clinton should have been indicted by the Department of Justice.
Scandals continue to plague both candidates. Either candidate would be a terrible president, although for different reasons. Trump is inexperienced and incoherent, and he says dangerous and misguided things; Clinton is experienced but corrupt, and she has done dangerous and misguided things — especially her hawkish foreign policy initiatives.
Why have the two major political parties chosen such terrible candidates? Given widespread evidence of election fraud and DNC corruption in the Democratic primaries, it is quite possible, even probable according to some statistical analyses, that Bernie Sanders should have been the Democratic nominee but that Clinton was chosen by party elites to preserve the status quo.
Trump, on the other hand, was not the choice of the Republican establishment but was democratically elected by people fed up with the status quo and seeking change. Despite his limitations, Trump is seen as a candidate committed to substantive change, as was Bernie Sanders. Many people realize that we desperately need change.
Some say, “Well, we have to vote for the lesser of the two evils.” However, lesser-evil voting has arguably led us to the current dismal situation. Repeatedly voting for the perceived lesser evil lowers standards and creates a “race to the bottom.” By voting for candidates who do not share our values just because they seem better than the opposing candidate, we have given carte blanche to party elites to choose the nominee.
Both parties have moved to the right in recent decades: the Republicans to the far right and the Democrats to the center right. Both parties are more and more heavily influenced by corporate donors and the military-industrial complex. Maybe it is time to say “enough is enough” and reject both of the corrupt corporatist political parties.
I have decided to work to build a progressive alternative by supporting the Green Party and their presidential ticket of Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka. The Green Party is an international party with parties in almost 90 countries.
Green parties have been particularly influential in western Europe and Scandinavia where they work for environmental and social democratic policies. The German Green Party, founded in 1980, has participated in coalition governments for many years. Green parties have been at the forefront of raising environmental concerns and addressing climate change, but they also prioritize social justice, grassroots democracy, and nonviolence/peace. To learn more about Green party politics, you can find the platform of the Green Party of the U.S. at http://www.gp.org/platform. It is a detailed and excellent platform.
Whoever you vote for on Nov. 8, I would encourage you to vote your values rather than your fears. The more that we vote out of fear, the more fearful our world becomes. The more that we forget our values, the more corrupt and amoral our society becomes.
The Green Party ticket will not win this year’s election. However, if it receives five percent of the national vote, the Green Party will qualify for federal matching funds and easier ballot access in future elections, and will become a viable alternative to the two parties that are asking us to make an impossible choice between two unacceptable candidates.
Beverly Burris, Professor Emerita of Sociology, taught at UNM for over 25 years. She can be reached at bburris@unm.edu. The views expressed in this editorial are Burris’ own, and do not represent the views of the Daily Lobo.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
