Saturday, February 24 , 2018, 12:01 pm | Fair 57º

 
 
 
 

Randy Alcorn: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, a Sickening Choice

With the state primaries now concluded, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ improbable campaign for the presidential nomination has conclusively come to an end — although he may be in denial about that.

Down by four touchdowns with two minutes remaining, Sanders is quarterbacking the game until the clock runs out. Whether noble or delusional, his insistence on continuing his campaign into July’s Democratic National Convention is futile — unless he is actually considering running as an independent.

Whether Sanders’ loss to Hillary Clinton is a result of a rigged selection process or the will of the majority of primary voters is, at this point, moot.

The reality is that Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee contending with the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, for the presidency.

This presidential election has extraordinary consequences for the nation. Sanders and his disappointed supporters must now decide whether they will play for the Clinton team, sit on the bench or go third party. If Sanders has overestimated his support among independent voters, a third-party run risks a Trump victory.

A glaring factor interfering with a rational selection process in this election cycle is the identity politics of gender. The vicious calumnious attacks on Sanders by zealous feminists substitute amateur psychology for objective, factual, analysis to impugn the character and intentions of one of the most honest, sincere and uncorrupted candidates to ever run for the presidency.

For the man-eating, fanatical feminists, any man contending with Clinton for the presidency — regardless of qualifications or character — must be cooked in a cauldron of bubbling progesterone.

Anyone who believes that the gender of the candidates and the novelty of electing the first female president is the most important consideration in this election are perpetuating the same kind of intransigent ideological idiocy that has made Washington a political tribal wasteland.

And, if Sanders bolts the Democrats for an independent run, there may not be enough hot progesterone in the pot to parboil both him and Trump.

Electing the first African-American president did not overcome intensely ideological, obstructionist politics. If the political atmosphere in Washington remains polluted with fractious ideology and special interest corruption, the nation will fare no better with the first female president.

Sanders, at least, is an honest man sincerely concerned with the best interests of 99 percent of Americans and earnestly committed to efforts for needed reforms. What do we get with a President Hillary Clinton?

Unless, a leopard can change its spots, Clinton may not be “for all America” as her campaign slogan promises.

Clinton has habitually taken advantage of public office to enrich herself. Her close affiliation with and generous support from the most avaricious forces of greed in this country does not portend that she will diligently work for the best interests of all Americans. This is a woman whose dissimulating behavior in high office has the stench of concealed corruption, and whose refusal to make public her lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street banks reeks of venality.

While Wall Street and corporate America, especially the defense industry, heave a collective sigh of relief that Clinton has out-maneuvered Sanders for the nomination, the rest of America is once again left to contemplate which duopoly evil to elect president.

It is Clinton’s great good fortune that her Republican opponent is the singularly outrageous Trump, the only candidate whose negativity ratings are worse than hers.

Trump’s bloviating blitzkriegs, puerile petulance and absurd promises to restore America to some mythical bygone happy days has mesmerized an ad hoc coalition of  economically disaffected, culturally retrogressive, minimally educated, scapegoat seeking and just plain pissed-off Americans.

And, although there are millions of such angry, dim-witted people in America, there probably aren’t enough of them to elect Trump, even if they all sobered up and staggered to the polls.

So, the majority of rational voters are left with Clinton. For many that is a sickening choice. Like taking chemotherapy rather than risking death from cancer, they will vote against Trump by voting for Clinton — then retch and live to fight another day.

Sanders may be mulling over all of this as he delays his exit.

Polling data continue to reveal that Clinton, currently under criminal investigation by the FBI, and Trump, being sued for fraud, are the two most reviled candidates for the presidency since polling began.

Of the thousands of people eligible for the presidency, how do we end up with these two? What kind of funky system reduces such a critical choice to two widely despised and mistrusted individuals whose badly broken moral compasses should make them unfit for any public office?

The answer is America’s devotion to the two-party system. Duopoly has the same serious defect as unfettered capitalism in that it quickly degenerates into monopolies that concentrate and maintain wealth, power and privilege in the hands of the few to the detriment of the many.

While Sanders’ phenomenal campaign fell short of the Democratic nomination, it demonstrated that the walls of the entrenched political establishment can be breached by millions of ordinary citizens making small donations, and it may have laid the foundation for reforming the process by which we find, vet and select candidates for high office.

The magnitude of support for Sanders shook the cocksure Democratic Party establishment that needed all of its Machiavellian machinery to engineer Clinton’s coronation.

The days of duopoly monopoly may be numbered, but they aren’t over yet. Bernie, please take the chemo. Let’s not risk cancer.

— Randy Alcorn is a Santa Barbara political observer. Contact him at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click here to get started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.



Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >