By Jeeni Criscenzo
I haven’t been one of your biggest fans and I still think that the DNC used some dirty tricks to defeat Bernie Sanders in the primaries, but today I’m ready to put that behind me. Until Wednesday night, my only reason to vote for you over Jill Stein would have been to make certain that Mr. Trump is not elected president of our country. Since I live in California, I thought I had the luxury of waiting to see how the election was going in the rest of the county before casting my vote. And that was my plan – to wait until the last hour to choose you or Jill Stein. Since California is not a swing state, it was highly likely that I could have used my vote as a form of protest without risking Trump winning.
Wednesday night my plan changed. When I listened to Donald Trump hedge about ceding to the winner during last night’s debate, I knew it isn’t enough just to make sure you win, it is paramount that you win in such overwhelming, indisputable numbers that Mr. Trump’s accusations of rigging look ludicrous. It is critical that any refusal on his part to accept the wish of the majority makes him look like a sore loser to his supporters.
So this morning, I completed my absentee ballot with the bubble next to Hillary Clinton filled in. And I am going to beg all of my friends who are considering a vote for Jill Stein to do the same, because there is only one way to prevent the terrorism of the hordes Trump is instigating to violence and chaos after he loses, and that his to soundly whump him in the polls beyond all dispute.
Please do not take my vote as a blanket approval of your past policy decisions, or your cozy relationship with Wall Street or your predisposition to war, or your support of Israel’s oppression of Palestine. While I cheer your clear support of marriage equality and every woman’s right to make her own medical decisions, after your election I intend to rally my folks to hold you to your promises to advance all of the progressive positions you have lately added to your campaign. Mostly, I will press you to take bold actions toward addressing climate change, something that supersedes everything.
If we end up with Trump’s racist minions terrorizing us after this election, our President will be justified in calling for martial law, and it will set a dangerous precedent against all kinds of protest in the future. We already have a militarized police and this would further empower them. A highly-armed, violent, radical right uprising after the election could destroy what we have left of the First Amendment and democracy itself. My progressive friends will not have the option of holding Clinton to her promises if we can’t take to the streets. So our directive is not just to make certain Trump is not elected, it is to defeat him beyond question, so his most radical supporters know they do not represent the majority, and hopefully, they will reject the sore-loser trumpet call to violence.
With that argument, I hope to persuade anyone considering a vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton that this is not the time for it. Please join me in making this an unquestionable win for Hillary Clinton so that the only thing we need to worry about on November 9th is planning Bernie Sander’s non-violent, progressive revolution.
Latest posts by Jeeni Criscenzo (see all)
- Isn’t It Good, Norwegian Wood? - December 6, 2018
- Homelessness and Capitalism: Some Untold Truths - May 30, 2018
- Fault Line Park | National Poetry Month - April 18, 2018
This letter is missing the entire point. It seems you disagree with Hillary on the main issues she’ll actually be affecting. You know she’s a corrupt, career politician and yet you still vote for her because of wedge issues. Your vote doesn’t count, so vote for your values. Your vote means far more giving the Greens a 5% tally than 1 in a sea of Hillary or Trump votes.
Sometimes voting for the lesser of two evils is necessary.
This is not an election between “two evils” – sorry, it’s between a racist neo-fascist and a centrist Democrat feminist.
I could be wrong but I really don’t think it’s going to come to the point of martial law. Oh a few individual will try but mostly it will be empty chest pounding and keyboard warriors.
Been to El Cajon lately?
Not only that but Lakeside. Still, I really don’t think an armed citizen revolt will get to the point where the prez will have to declare martial law. Then again, I guess we will find out soon enough.
“or your support of Israel’s oppression of Palestine.”
In all fairness, Israel has a right to defend itself. It’s not like they aren’t under constant attack. What are they supposed to do? Yes their actions result in innocent lives lost but again what are they supposed to do? Palestine (which isn’t even a real country) or Palestinian citizens democratically voted Hamas into power. Hamas which wants to see Israel’s destruction. I do want to see a two state solution but I can understand why many don’t.
Off topic so I won’t get into this here. But I disagree with you in no uncertain terms.
That’s fine. It’s all good.
Hey, dude, some advice to you, Chris. Don’t start your comment with “In all fairness…” That’s like saying I’m more balanced and sane than that person I’m addressing. Same for pronouncing “That’s fine” and “It’s all good” when someone disagrees with you, as if they give a damn about your endorsement of free speech. Nahhh, you have to use examples and proofs of what you’re advocating if you want to impress us. So far, I’m not impressed. But, then “it’s all good.”
Ok noted. That being said, I was just acknowledging Jeeni’s disagreement with me and that it (Israel occupation) is a whole separate discussion.
Jim, I think you might be missing the entire point of my letter. Wedge issues have nothing to do with my vote. I know that our vote for president in California has little to no impact on who is elected. I had every intention of voting for Jill Stein even though I think it is pure fantasy to hope she will garner the 5% she needs to get the Green Party on the ballot.
Our only hope is to be able to turn out in masses after this nightmare of an election to oppose neoliberal policies with well planned, non-violent tactics. People didn’t do that when Obama was elected. They MUST be willing to do it after Hillary is elected. She is no champion. But it must be done together, understanding the mind-control techniques that are being used to divide us, and it MUST be non-violent. We have no chance of winning a violent uprising and many innocent people will be hurt.
It’s the specter of armed, Trump supporters rioting in the streets after the election, providing the neoliberal oligarchy with the excuse they are looking for to impose martial law and kill our First Amendment rights, that scares me more than anything. There will be no possibility of a revolution, non-violent ot otherwise, if this happens. This led me to offer the posted suggestion that perhaps the only way to prevent a violent revolt by people who do not share our progressive values and are coming from a place of racism and self-interest, that will result in Martial Law and a permanent suspension of our First Amendment rights, is for Hillary to win the popular vote. This could defuse provocation from suggestions that the election was rigged (even though it WAS). I could be wrong. I am simply offering my perspective.
I am in no way abandoning my life-long opposition to neoliberal, repressive, war-centric policies. Yes, I am acting out of fear, not of Trump, but of the militaristic response to the mobs of angry racist supporters whom he has primed to revolt if he doesn’t win.
I’m glad this has sparked a healthy discussion and pray that we all can respect our different perspectives. I believe that everyone who has posted a response here and on my original Facebook post, comes from a genuine love of our nation and a yearning for peace and justice. And yes, anyone who claims not to be coming from a place of fear is not being honest. These are scary times.
Jenni Criscenzo your vote for Jill Stein would have been a chance for Jill Stein to be on the ballot to get the 15% needed to be in the debate in the next election. Why not believe it could happen? California is a blue state and there is no way HRC will not win with the people who voted for her in the first place despite having cheated with the full support of the Democratic Party and the establishment so the tiny majority hopefully 15% can hold their nose and vote for the Green Party in the hope they will reach the percentage needed. I am holding my nose and will vote Jill Stein. These two candidates will not bring this country in the right trajectory meaning for the people, against Wall Street and bringing peace to this world. Of course if someone is in a swing state there is no choice than to vote for HRC.It is a sad day for our country to have this caliber of candidates. Expecting a war without end.
There’s just too much at stake; Trump not only needs to be defeated – he needs to be demolished – annihilated politically. Bravo to Jeeni for understanding this.
Some people are incapable of understanding this truth: Our only hope is to be able to turn out in masses after this nightmare of an election to oppose neoliberal policies with well planned, non-violent tactics.
Jeeni, this was great – Patty loved it as she saw it on facebook and read it to me; we reposted it on the OB Rag this morning as it was too important to pass or skip or do later.
BTW, check the Rag for comments.
Can’t say I agree with all the rhetoric in this essay about “Crooked Hillary.” That’s all the arc-right BS, the Alex Jones BS. It has been regurgitated to us relentlessly by conservatives for decades, and not very well debunked by MSM. But it IS pure bunk. I supported Bernie during the primary, not because Hillary was “corrupt,” but because he was simply more progressive than Hillary on the important issues. Hillary is NOT corrupt. She is a career politician and eminently qualified to be President. Bernie is a career politician also. They are both progressives. Hillary’s Senate voting record made her the 11th most liberal Senator in the entire history of the United States. Bernie is the 1st. But if you had a conversation with Bernie and said Hillary and corrupt in the same sentence, I strongly suspect he would dismiss you promptly and walk away. This year’s Democratic Platform includes many of his policies and is the most progressive in modern history. Granted, it could still be more progressive and I have no doubt it will be in the next election and the one after that. But right now, let’s not kid ourselves. In this election, no matter what state, a vote for the multi-millionaire Jill Stein is a vote for Trump. A vote for the libtard Libertarian is the same. I definitely agree with Jeeni that Don the con must be soundly defeated in order to deflect his conspiratorial rhetoric which is a threat to our democracy. “Protest” votes will only egg on the gun-toting vigilante Trump supporters.
Jeeni, Great article and I can’t tell you how painful it is to admit that I voted for Hillary.
I agree with Frank that there is too much at stake this time around. After the election, there is much work to be done. Thanks for sticking your neck out there, my brave friend.
Jeeni,thanks for a thoughtful, well-rounded article. A landslide election result is imperative, not just for the safety of our country, but for the planet.I donated to Bernie and was disappointed for his loss. However, life has become more dangerously serious than I could have imagined in my 64 years. Donald, his crazies, and the rest of the world need a resounding message.
There is a certain level of vitriol directed at people who would vote for Jill Stein that is unwarranted. Perhaps its because the “lesser evil” idea and the repulsiveness of Trump are so easy to articulate. The case for voting one’s beliefs and conscience, ironincally, I believe are harder to articulate and I have shied away from doing so, as I think have many others in the face of adamant and somewhat bullying HRC supporters who accuse those who would do otherwise as essentially voting for Trump. I think those who would vote for Jill Stein have a valid point and I will likely vote Jill Stein. HRC’s “liberal” voting record as a NY Senator mixes social and economic issues. Regarding the economy and labor issues, there is every reason to believe, from her 30 + years in the public light, that she is a confirmed neo-liberal. Certainly, her husband was a key architect of welfare reform, increased incarceration, and free trade – all of which disproportionately impacted the working class and people of color. I think it can reasonably be argued that her election would do more harm to progressive change, in the long term, than the election of Trump by the continuation of the cycle of subordination of progressive goals to centrist policies, so as to maintain party unity and prevent the election of a conservative president – i.e., “the lesser evil.” HRC’s hiring of Debbie Wasserman Shultz and selection of Tim Kaine shows that she has little regard for progressives – beyond superficial and temporary nods. In contrast, the election of Trump would certainly invigorate progressives and discredit the insider and centrist Democratic control that ensured HRC’s nomination over Sanders. In addition, Trump is far more likely to be a one term president than HRC. While the election of Trump frightens me, so does the long and incremental descent toward privatism and income inequality that an HRC election would ensure. Fundamental change rarely happens neatly and in an orderly fashion. If nothing else, Trump offers a sharp contrast between progressives, conservatives, and neo-liberals – and would coalesce and distinguish progressives from the center and the right. I’m not advocating the election of Trump but I reject the idea that one has to abandon one’s convictions in order to prevent the worst case scenario. That seems like a recipe for a never ending cycle of status quo.
The contrast between the two nominations has been fascinating. One with super-delegates meant to prevent a non-viable grassroots nomination but which has resulted in the nomination of a candidate with almost no grassroots support. The other without super-delegates that has nominated a candidate of the type the other was designed to prevent. One half of the electorate that is playing “prevent defense” and will likely win the election but leave their own party and its policies unchanged (even rewarding party insiders for subverting their will). The other half that has supported their grassroots choice with reckless devotion, will likely lose the election but has shaken their own party leadership and structure to the core.
In sum, I think the combination of the right’s willingness to “burn down the house” contrasted with progressives’ tendency to choose the “lesser evil” will continue the long term rightward trend of the country.
I guess you don’t mind living in a burned down house Bill.
We’d build a new more progressive house.