There is no doubt in my mind that Jill Stein and her followers are trying to elect Donald Trump. This is a continuation of a strategy that started with their behavior while ostensibly supporting Bernie Sander's campaign that I discovered and documented while running down allegations lodged against Hillary during his primary campaign. What I found were a number of programs, run by 501-c-3 groups, that were aimed at dividing the left and supporting the worst leftist narratives, such as charges that she's a "war-monger," A "neo-liberal", etc... To me she is a moderate on foreign policy, and definitely not a neo-liberal, but then I understand the word differently from far leftists.
Trolling The Left Redux
I wrote on this during the primary season in an article called Trolling the Left Stopping Hillary. I also wrote about how much of what we were hearing during the primary was material that the folks, like the Clinton's, might have said themselves about their predecessors at one time. [Stabbed with our own sword], but after the primary I've found evidence that, in addition to wealthy Right Wing industrialists trolling the left, the Russians seem to have been involved. That doesn't mean that either Bernie or Jill would win anything, even if Hillary were to die of pneumonia.
Personal Ambition Not Public Good
It just means that their candidacies are part of a plan, hatched by the right, but with treacherous cooperation from people on the left, to bring down the left from within. They knew they could draw, not only on years of GOP slurs, but years of backstabbing and rewriting of history aimed at blaming Bill Clinton for his successes and forgetting that Bill saved the left from years of being marginalized by the Nixon/Reagan Revolution. All that is out of scope for this post. The purpose of this post is to document the degree of the treachery of the so-called "Bernie or Busters" and the fact that Jill Stein seems intent on electing Donald Trump. Hopefully she'd fail.
Traitors from the Left
Leftists like Cornell West like to constantly repeat the Big Lie that Hillary is a "neo-liberal", by which means that she's secretly a stooge of the big banks, pro-war (warmonger), and betraying labor and us members of the so-called 99%. For example Democracy Now quotes Cornel West as accusing her of:
generates a "mass incarceration regime", "deregulates banks and markets", promotes "regime change in Libya", "undermines ... Haiti" etc...[Democracy Now]
I can argue with each of these statements, or at least defend her on them. She's had a role in a number of things, but to make his case Cornell and other have to distort that role. For example efforts to stop an epidemic of crime, involved legal changes, which she had a role in, but a minor one. But she did not "generate" a "mass incarceration regime." She pushed for laws that would focus on major violent offenders, referred to them as "predators", and Cornell in his arrogance distorts her words to make her into a monster for it. She did promote "regime change" when the west intervened in the Libyan Civil war on behalf of rebels. It failed, but again, that doesn't make her a war-monger and is not a symptom of "neo-liberalism." She played a role in Obama's efforts to help the people of the middle east. Her husband's foundation has actually had a salutory role for labor in Haiti, unfinished and underfunded, but real and not appreciated. And more importantly all those claims belie the fact that her own plans and beliefs were secondary to her role as "wife of Bill Clinton", and Secretary of State to Barack Obama. She served these people wisely and well.
Of course to radicals like Cornell West, Obama is a neo-liberal, and he's insulted Obama worse but I won't share it.
Traitors and the Russians
Cornell West is on Russia's side in his arguments, and he's on Trumps size. He sees the West's proposal for "no-fly zones in Syria" as "encirclement of Russia" "that can lead toward war. Never mind that the purpose of no-fly zones is to stop air-bombing of civilians in places like Aleppo. He uses "neoliberal" to mean people who oppose Russia's view of the world. He echos Donald Trump, and given recent revelations of Russian support for anti-USA dissidents, it makes me wonder if he's not paid to do so. It doesn't matter if he calls Donald Trump a "neo-fascist" --> he sees Hillary as a greater evil. [Democracy Now]
Defeating Progressive Causes to Win Political Power
Jill uses pretty much the same language and is just as dishonest. She admits that Donald Trump is a threat to the country.
Jill Stein says: "It is policies like NAFTA, like globalization, like the dominance of the banks, like the Wall Street bailouts, like the Wall Street meltdown thanks to deregulation." But then she says; "Who gave us those policies? The Clintons were leading the way on those policies!" So to her: "The answer to neofascism is stopping neoliberalism. Putting another Clinton in the White House will fan the flames of this right-wing extremism." So to her, she'd rather let Trump be elected than permit Hillary to be elected. She says "We are going to stand up to Donald Trump and to stand up to Hillary Clinton!" Which, given that she knows she won't win, means defeating Hillary Clinton. NYMag
And she makes no bones that she thinks that Hillary is worse than Trump:
“Donald Trump, I think, will have a lot of trouble moving things through Congress,” Stein says. “Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, won’t … Hillary has the potential to do a whole lot more damage, get us into more wars, faster to pass her fracking disastrous climate program, much more easily than Donald Trump could do his.” [rawstory]
Jill thinks that a multiparty system may somehow be an improvement over our primary and two party system.
“I’ve tried to talk with Bernie, but, you know, Bernie is — he is a team player,” she said, saying he refuses to speak to her. “I think he’s on the wrong team, perhaps because he’s been in Washington, D.C., too long, because he used to really understand independent politics and why we cannot have a viable political system unless we have independent political parties.” She concludes that it could be “a generational thing.” [rawstory]
She says this, but her claim that we don't have "independent political parties" is based on a whole demonology about how politics works in the USA. She doesn't understand how change works in the USA or that many political parties are not necessarily better than two. Maybe she's never seen French, Italian or Israeli politics at work.
HA Goodman, Chris Hedges, Etc...
HA Goodman lays out the reasoning in one of his many Anti-Hillary or Pro Stein screeds:
"Four years of Trump will lead to eight years of a Democrat or possibly a Green Party candidate. Four years of Clinton will undoubtedly lead to eight years of Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz. Jill Stein represents honesty, integrity, and structural change. If you voted for Bernie Sanders, Dr. Stein offers you not only a continuation of his movement, but a vibrant and even stronger Green Party platform." [HA Goodman]
Ends Justify the Means -- NOT
So to the Greens the ends, (a Green party replacement for the Democratic party) justify the means; electing Trump. They really think that 4 years of Trump would lead to a Green Party Candidate. What they don't realize is that sabotaging Hillary means 4-8 years of misery for the country, and possibly such a corrupted system that nobody on the left will be able to get elected due to the power of the right wing police state he's promising to impose. But they don't care. They are fueled by a false narrative.
I could pick other details to make my point. And I'm sure a lot of Greenies will reject my proofs. But that shows that they are as much a "#BasketOfDeplorables" as the Trumpers. Fueled by the same hate and unwillingness to accept basic principle of civics, solidarity and working together. Cornell West exemplifies this, since he helped write the Democratic platform and then deserted to Stein because he couldn't accept the principles of Majority rule that went into that platform. He so hates the country Israel and Jews living there that that was a deal breaker for him. The following Image has some further quotes that reinforce what I just said:
- Further Reading:
- Democracy Now:
- Huffington Post & HA Goodman