I've become increasingly disappointed with the way Jill Stein has been conducting her Green Party run for President.
A key strategy of hers seems to be to try to pick up Bernie supporters by attacking Hillary Clinton with the same Evil, Crooked Hillary talking points and allusions used by both Trump and Sanders. Meanwhile, she renders little to no criticism of St. Bernie, who himself is hardly perfect, perhaps so as not to anger his already-angry, most-ardent supporters.
It would seem more intellectually honest to acknowledge Sanders' weaknesses and problematic actions and votes, as well. As it stands, attacking the female front-runner for not being perfect but not attacking her also-imperfect male opponents has not been a good look. I doubt it will endear her to many women and feminists. Clinton has endured decades of smears and attacks, and is still, still battling in both a Primary and General Election, as Sanders has stubbornly failed to concede the Primary when it's clear he has been beaten.
This continual piling on from a "progressive"? Yikes. The Greens will have to try really hard to ever win me back as a voter.
A Twitter juxtaposition shows the basic incoherence of the Evil, Crooked Hillary narrative:
Just took the @iSideWith quiz. Unsurprisingly I was a 99% match w/ @BernieSanders. Let's keep the revolution going. pic.twitter.com/ID1HfhEeqp— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) June 13, 2016
Hillary Clinton, Stein says, is the worst. Even worse than Trump. Sad!
In fact, Clinton is so bad that Stein herself is a mere 91% match with her.
Make no mistake, both Sanders and Stein are politicians, even though Stein herself has never held office, making it difficult for critics to point to/use/exaggerate her missteps. Yet, playing into the currently-fashionable populist anti-establishment narrative while framing Clinton as a corrupt, corporate polar opposite is likely a very intentional strategy.
Or, let's call the strategy what it is. After all, I was a registered voter in 2000. I now like to call Green strategy: "When leftwing purity has rightwing consequences."
Look at last night's failed gun control measures, blocked by Republicans even after the worst mass shooting in US history.
Now think about a Sanders or Stein presidency and imagine four years of the same. Incremental compromising pragmatism might seem "more evil" than holding high progressive ideals, but hell, at least it makes some progress given the realities of our legislative processes.
Which raises a question. Is it better to hold morally pure ideals and accomplish nothing, or to compromise those ideals and accomplish something?