The prospect of having a megalomaniacal, xenophobic and inexperienced human bowling bowl in charge of the most politically and economically powerful country in the world, seems to have, perhaps quite understandably, worried many an American voter.
Donald Trump is no doubt a divisive figure, even his economic record seems somewhat dubious when one considers the fact that he managed to convert the $40 million he inherited from his father into four bankrupt companies and at least $5 billion worth of debt. This was proven in 1990 when The Trump Organisation was bailed out by a coalition of banks.
When faced with the Hollywood villain caricature of Trump, Hillary Clinton seems to be the American Daenerys Targaryen – albeit significantly more wrinkled – swooping in at the last second to secure power whilst liberating the oppressed minorities from society’s cultural shackles. This isn’t a misplaced idea, but the issue with Hillary is that, in actuality, her record on gender equality, race issues, and general compassion paints a picture of a political sadist who is more proficient in weaving a web of lies than a black widow spider. Not to mention that Hillary is twice as dangerous to the unwary.
On “Super Tuesday” Clinton won the democratic primaries by 68 points amongst black voters and in Alabama she managed to secure 92 percent of the African-American demographic. It would seem, then, that the aforementioned demographic may not be aware of the fact that, back in her early political career, Hillary worked on Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign. This particular politician had a penchant for segregationist policies including excluding black people from ‘white’ hotels and restaurants, voting against the 1964 civil rights act, even going so far as to call Martin Luther King Jr. a “Demagogue”. One would thus hope that Mrs. Clinton quickly relinquished the ideology of her political mentor and advanced morally and socially to become a progressive. However this hope would be fretfully in vain as, when specifically questioned about her Goldwater affiliation during an NPR interview, she stated: “I feel like my political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with.” Not exactly a condemnation of her previous actions.
It gets worse. During her Husband’s presidential term, Hillary was a strong lobbyist for the introduction of the “Super Predator” proposition, so as to strengthen her appearance in relation to being tough on crime. This was a policy that her husband initiated by ordering the execution of a mentally disabled black man by the name of Ricky Ray Rector, for a crime he couldn’t possibly have understood, and condemning him to a fate he certainly didn’t comprehend as he was strapped into the electric chair. Hillary saw to the implementation of the policy in deprived suburbs consisting of mainly minority populations, essentially stripping people of post-prison support and increasing the incarceration rate. The former secretary of state also went so far as to say: “We must bring them to heel.” The consequences of the implementation of the Clintons’ combined pincer attack was that, by the end of Bill Clinton’s term, unemployment for black men who had not attended college (including those behind bars) had reached 42 percent according to a study by “The Nation”.
However, the cultist Clintonistas will have scarcely finished reading the previous paragraph before pointing out the fact that Hillary came out in favour of gay marriage in 2013, so surely that should give her some measure of credit in the political field of equality. This fact would seem to count in her favour, were it not for the fact that she had previously endorsed the “Protection of Marriage” act, which forbade the matrimonial union of any homosexual couple. Additionally, in 2010 Hillary decided to actively reverse a decision to change the presumptuous terms of “mother” and “father” on U.S passports to “parent”, as has been discovered via some newly leaked emails. She continued, saying that she “disagree[d]” but that she “could live with” homosexual parents as long as the passports were reverted to their original state. This semantic phraseology is no-doubt alarming, but still infinitely more subtle than her completely unequivocal assertion that marriage was “a sacred bond between a man and woman” and that marriage was designed for the purpose of biological reproduction, in 2004.
Now it necessary to perhaps address the biggest untruth touted by the current Clinton campaign: that because Hillary Clinton is a woman, she would therefore help to facilitate equality between genders, if she were elected into the oval office. Well, one should, perhaps, take into account the fact she launched a slanderous media campaign, backed by governmental and tax-payer money, against Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey. She didn’t think twice about portraying her fellow women as liars and lustful for fame, or in some cases something somewhat less savoury. This was of course in order to try to maintain the positive public perception of her carnal husband. Writer Christopher Hitchens also put forth an argument, in his book “No-one Left to Lie to” that Mrs. Clinton also knew
about and covered up the case of Juanita Broaddrick, who claims to have been raped by the former president. Whether or not Broaddrick was telling the truth, the fact that Hillary would suppress a woman’s right to seek a trial against her alleged aggressor speaks volumes in relation to her views on Feminism.
So, then, to return to the title of this piece, could one conclude that Hillary Clinton has a worse record on equality than her opposing Republican front runner? It has been argued that whilst Clinton’s past record on equality is bad, she has developed and truthfully changed her opinions, and her policies. However it would be wise to learn from the misfortune of the Bosnians, to whom it was promised before the Clintons took the White House that they would receive aid were Bill to ever become president. Consequently, during their war for independence, they were short changed, as they were told that any form of intervention might detract public focus from Hillary’s new healthcare reforms, many people were killed as a result, and the Bosnian Herzegovinian state was nearly crushed by Serbian forces. The truth is that the former first-lady’s promises and policies are more fluid than bowl of ice-cream on a Nairobi rooftop. Her policies on minorities may change completely if she were to get into power, if they aren’t already privately detrimental to public interests. This unfortunately means that Trump, despite his perceived xenophobia is a safer bet, at least in terms of domestic policies, because at least you know what’s coming and what he believes.
There is perhaps one salvation in all of this, which is the hope that Bernie Sanders, who has been campaigning for equality consistently for equality since 1962, might make a valiant comeback. However having received such heavy defeats in the primaries and caucuses of the southern states of Texas and Louisiana, one would have to hope that Sanders can claim the title of “King of the North” in the upcoming primaries in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois.