We Need a Clothespin Campaign for Hillary

- by Helen Klein

In this monumental upcoming election, it would behoove Americans to take a lesson from the French and strongly encourage Republicans, Independents and Democrats – including progressives – to hold their noses and vote for Hillary.

In a March 3, 2016 New Yorker article, Adam Gopnik describes how, in 2002, the French found themselves in a situation that was similar to our current presidential election. Jacques Chirac was running against Jean-Marie Le Pen. As with Bernie Sanders, the French progressive socialist candidate, Lionel Jospin, had lost in the primaries and was not in the running for the general election. The choice between Chirac and Le Pen presented voters with the "classic fascist double whammy." Chirac was a right-center candidate who was viewed as unprincipled, mediocre and corrupt, and whom the Socialists had spent a lifetime fighting against. Le Pen was a right wing, authoritarian racist who was anti-immigrant as well as anti-Semitic. He was friendly to corporations, yet not opposed to government welfare. Sound familiar?

So what did the French do? An alliance was formed, including respectable conservatives and French Socialists. They held their noses and voted for Chirac. As they voted, they held clothespins in their pockets to signify their disgust, since wearing them into the voting booth would have publicly shown who they were voting for, and that was unconstitutional.

This fall, Americans need to do the same. Let’s hand out the clothespins!

The French "were operating on the wise premise that sometimes people who are mistaken about almost everything are better than someone who is wrong about the only thing that counts. There are politicians we strongly disagree with, and then there are anti-constitutional crypto-fascist authoritarians. Pretending they’re the same is what happened at Vichy, and it should never be allowed to happen again."

There’s a lesson here for Bernie supporters: "Sometimes, as the French left learned, the people you can’t stand are better than the people you can’t live with." At the Democratic convention, Bernie-- noting that we live in the real world-- gave his support to Hillary.

In France, Le Pen and his daughter, Marine, are "quarantined from respectable conservatism," as Trump should be here. Unfortunately that hasn’t happened, and we’ve watched in disbelief as he’s risen to the top of the Republican ticket.

And as if the parallels weren’t already disturbing enough, Le Pen came out in February and endorsed Trump. No surprise there. Two peas in a pod.

In his June article on the John Halle website, Noam Chomsky-- MIT professor and life-long progressive--expresses views in alignment with Clothespin voting. Chomsky describes LEV (Lesser of Two Evils) voting and why it is so important to do so in this election. He asserts that if Trump is elected, the progressive movement will be diminished and all that it has been trying to accomplish will be greatly undermined. His points are quoted below:

• Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgment directed towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values or a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.

• The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.

• One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warning, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels and the dismantling of environmental regulations, and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies…. Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.

• The suffering which these and other similar extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.

• (The above) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-- namely in a contested “swing state.”

• …The left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact) that it lacks concern for those surely victimized by a Trump administration.

• Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives, who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels, with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment, rather than breaking with it, as they must.

• Conclusion: by dismissing a ‘lesser evil’ electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat, the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

Last week in the Huffington Post (initially posted on Vox), Ezra Klein summed up this election:

“This campaign is not merely a choice between the Democratic and Republican parties, but between a normal political party and an abnormal one… Republicans held an abnormal convention and nominated an abnormal candidate.

Trump has already been scolded by his own party for racist comments, for attacks on the judiciary, for undermining the NATO alliance, for inviting foreign governments to meddle in American elections. None of this is okay. None of it is normal. This is not a man with the temperament, the steadiness, or the discipline to be president.”

One quote from Rand Paul, noted in Ezra Klein’s article, is too good to pass up. Paul described Trump as "a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president." Tell us what you really mean, Rand!

In today’s New York Times, Paul Krugman’s editorial, while aimed at Republicans, has meaning for all Americans:

The bottom line is that even if you don’t like Mrs. Clinton or what she stands for, it’s hard to see how you could view her possible victory with horror. And it’s hard to see how you could view Mr. Trump’s possible victory any other way… Democracy isn’t about making a statement, it’s about exercising responsibility. And indulging your feelings at a time like this amounts to dereliction of your duty as a citizen.

To end this post, here is one last piece from Friday’s New York Times. In Gail Collins’ blog, Joan Wheeler from New Orleans wrote:

Joan: One of the most important reasons to elect Hillary Clinton is to put down Donald Trump, and put him down hard! Trump is the biggest threat to this country that I’ve experienced in my 84 years on the planet. That includes the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, McCarthyism, Richard Nixon, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassination of J.F.K. and Martin Luther King, the presidency of George W. Bush, the current problem with terrorism and every other bad thing this country has gone through in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Gail: Well, Joan, I’m not sure I agree with you about World War II. But you have definitely driven your point home.

Trump is truly alarming and should not be anywhere near the Oval Office or the nuclear button. For this election season, the spotlight needs to be shifted off of Hillary and turned on Trump. Hillary policies can be fought once she is in office.

So everyone, purchase your clothespins and get ready for November 8!