Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Dumb Choices: Why Hillary should not be president

Posted by Charles II on October 2, 2014

I had five minutes to read Hillary Clinton’s book, Hard Choices, so I skimmed 10 pages on Latin America. Although I knew where she stood on Honduras, reading her explanation about that and the ongoing Cuban embargo made me realize how much contempt she has for Latin America.

I’m not a fan of Fidel Castro. Read Havana Nocturne (T.J. English) and see if it doesn’t raise questions in your mind about his character. I do recognize that he has done some good things, both in ending extreme poverty in Cuba and in terms of opposing apartheid and elevating world health. But I recognize that he’s done it through undemocratic means. That’s Realpolitik: understanding why leaders can be bad people yet popular, or at least more popular than the alternative.

But the embargo against Cuba–which was just extended for a year–is not just a “relic of the Cold War.” It is a flagrantly and increasingly illegal act, condemned by the entire world. Not even the U.K., not even Japan, not even Poland stands with us (Israel does). But Hillary Clinton goes along with the US line that we have to continue to isolate ourselves in order to force the Cuban government to democratize.

Even though it hasn’t worked for 52 years.

Even though the only people really hurt by it are the Cuban people.

And, according to Hillary, any Latin American country that sees the embargo not as a quaint “relic”, one that we can keep around out of fondness for the death and misery it causes, but as U.S. bullying (not to mention arrogance and stupidity) must be a commie creep like that Chaaavez fellow.

That is not leadership, Madame Secretary. That is contempt for Latin America and for the intelligence of your readers.

And then there’s Honduras. And Nicaragua. And Venezuela. And Brazil (!) All of whom are/were run by “strongmen.” Manuel Zelaya of Honduras is even the “caricature of a strongman.”

No, Madame Secretary. You’re a caricature of American arrogance and blindness. And your justification for your actions during the Honduran coup is transparently dishonest. You tell us that Oscar Arias (correctly) told you that a military coup against a democratically-elected leader could have a “domino effect” throughout a region that had been plagued by coups and dictatorship. You were most entertained by this “novel interpretation” (if I recall your phrase correctly) of the domino theory.

FFFFFFF. If this is the sort of contempt for Latin America that you display in public, what you must feel in your heart!

No more fake Democrats, please.

6 Responses to “Dumb Choices: Why Hillary should not be president”

  1. jo6pac said

    Sad not much more on this subject. Voting Green

    • Charles II said

      While I respect everyone’s choice of candidate, I vote for whoever will do the least damage. For example, I think Obama has done less damage than a John McCain or a Mitt Romney would have.

      Or, for that matter, a Ralph Nader. Someone with no Washington experience and no effective power base would be destroyed by the corporate machine. In a sense, that’s what happened to Obama.

      What we are doing is buying time, hoping that the American people start to see what is going on and how to respond. I believe that there has been considerable movement building during the Obama years. Genuine progressives have been elected in a few places. Drug laws have been repealed in a few places. In 2017, the first Single Payer system should go into effect. It should show costs so much lower than other systems that other states will be forced to follow suit.

      This is a big, powerful country. When it makes mistakes, they have huge consequences. When it does the right thing, likewise. As long as we don’t give up, we will turn it around.

  2. jo6pac said

    No more fake Democrats, please.

    There both fake and are owned by the same people, Obama know his path before ever getting to potus. I can no longer vote for the lesser evil and just maybe electing someone like the Greens and not RN it might be enough to wake up the sheeple that Amerika is run for the 1% only. Then again Amerikas corp. owned media is really good at keeping the Amerikan people divided. Sad:( I hope you’re right and I’m wrong.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/03/the-privilege-of-the-pritzkers/

    Hillabillie reminds me of Ronnie-ray-guns good friend maggie thatcher.

    • jo6pac said

      Sorry I didn’t mean to embed it please take it down if you like.

      • Charles II said

        No problem with embedding it. I’ve removed the second copy so that the page can load very slightly faster.

        Thing is, FDR would have been with the Hamilton Project. He was fundamentally a conservative Democrat. He was able to do some good–and a lot less than he should have done–because there was a strong and radical union movement (not to mention Eleanor) pushing him to do so. Genuine progressives simply cannot get elected nationally in the US. There has never been a single genuinely progressive president! The leadership of the country ranges from centrist to very hard right, and always has.

        And a lot of this cannot be blamed on the wealthy alone. This country has always suffered from selfishness, racism and intolerance of many kinds. Except perhaps in New England, we never really had a sense of community. The rich may have stoked this, but they were stoking a lit fire. So it’s almost impossible to build a movement of broad solidarity.

        Now, we are hardly unique. Most European countries have long histories of oppressing minorities and tolerating terrible poverty so that a few could be wealthy. There aren’t many countries where the sense of community is well developed. And even there, outsiders are generally treated poorly.

        So, bottom line: how has progress happened? It has generally come in spurts. It has always come when a centrist government is in place and there’s a strong left-wing movement. Abolition, for example. Lincoln was no radical, but he knew that the nation could not continue half slave and half istfree. If the South had not seceded, it’s quite likely that slavery would have continued for another generation. And in any case, it was the Abolition movement, not the Republican Party, that made emancipation happen.

        The implication of our history to me is that we have to try to push the government as far to the left as the system will allow, namely to the center. And we have to have a strong movement in the country. Mostly, we have to educate more people so that there’s less resistance to necessary change.

  3. jo6pac said

    Sorry I’m really confused ;)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: