Dear Bernie supporters,
As you well know, Hillary Clinton is now the presumptive nominee. The "FBI primary," as Trump calls it, was Sanders' last shot. Many of you probably hoped that an incitement might change the mind of super-delegates, but as fate would have it, Clinton was not indicted. The only thing now standing between her and the nomination is a procedural vote in three weeks at the convention. It is over.
Chances are that you are a little sore about the outcome. A close race tends to leave a bad aftertaste, especially for the side that loses. Nevertheless, the political revolution continues beyond the Democratic primary. In Philadelphia, Sanders will push for a more liberal party platform. After the convention, with your help, he will eliminate super delegates and help elect trustworthy liberals to both state and national office.
Which leaves one question: who should you vote for on November 8th?
As of now, 45 percent of Bernie supporters are unwilling, at least at the moment, to declare for Clinton. If you are one of them, then you are probably deciding between the three main alternatives. They are Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee; Gary Johnson, the Libertarian party nominee; and Jill Stein, the presumptive Green Party nominee.
Trump is a lunatic, so maybe not him. If you are supporting Trump, then shame on you for compromising literally every value you had. You should know better.
Gary Johnson seemed great at first, but then you found out that he wants to get rid of the Department of Education. He is a libertarian, holding an opposing view to Sanders on nearly everything other than some social issues. For God's sake, on his campaign website, Johnson admits man-made climate change is real, but proceeds to explain that he basically does not care.
Jill Stein, polling around 7 percent nationally, is the third option. She is a vocal critic of the Clintons and a third party candidate with positions to the left of the Democrats. In a lot of ways, she is the natural choice for Bernie supporters. She has certainly been courting Sanders' Democrats aggressively.
There is just one problem.
Jill Stein would make a terrible president and is a waste of your vote. The letter is a plea to Sander's supporters; no matter how much you hate Clinton, please do not make the mistake of voting for Stein.
Stein is grossly unqualified for the highest office in the United States.
Acting as president takes more than good ideas, unfortunately. To lead the country effectively, the President needs to know how to negotiate with foreign leaders, whip votes in Congress, and represent Americans of all kinds. It demands more than snarky and aggressive tweets to prove that you can be trusted to service as a representative. That means you need experience in office which voters can analyze to see your record.
Jill Stein served as an elected representative to Town Meeting in Lexington, Massachusetts. Aside from that, she has served as the co-chair of a local recycling committee.
I am sorry, but in what world does that qualify someone to be the President? You may not like Clinton's views on certain issues, but she is undeniably more qualified for the position. She has served as First Lady, Senator, and as Secretary of State. Sanders spent a quarter of century in Congress. The fact that Trump is more qualified than Stein to be President should send a clear message.
Stein's views are either non-unique or bad.
According to iSideWith, Stein is a 91 percent match with Clinton on political issues. Nine out of 10 times, they agree. So which issues constitute the 9 percent difference to justify a vote for her? According to her official platform, Stein wants to do the following:
1. Cut the military by at least 50 percent.
This is an absurd suggestion for a number of reasons. The military's budget is obviously inflated and should be cut, but Stein's proposal is blatantly dangerous. According to the Green Shadow Cabinet, her plan would involve drastically reducing the number of US carriers, ceasing to defend South Korea and Japan, and abandoning all 700-plus American overseas bases. Stein's argument is that these sorts of expenditures are entirely unnecessary at a time when the United States is an unrivaled superpower. What she does not seem to realize, however, is that Americans remain relatively safe, not only because the military protects the homeland, but because it also maintains extraordinary capabilities to project strength globally. Holing up on our continent neither deters threats, nor keeps US enemies in check. Abandoning South Korea and Japan, for instance would leave China unchecked in the South China Sea and embolden North Korea. Pulling out all troops and support from Iraq would be practically handing the country over to Iran and ISIS. Our allies help to keep us safe. I understand that Stein does not want to engage in foreign adventurism, a laudable perspective, but cutting the budget by half would be naive and reckless. How would we combat ISIS? Stein would leave the only the French, a failing Iraq, and war torn Syria to do our work for us. When ISIS marches into Baghdad or Damascus, conducting (and inspiring) more attacks such as those in San Bernadino and Orlando, America will not be safer. The carrier task forces and foreign bases help us to launch airstrikes on terrorist groups, to protect US citizens abroad, and to maintain capabilities to strike against states that would harm US interests or allies. They are the heart of our military in the 21st century.
2. End U.S. military and financial support to Israel.
Israel has been an important ally and maintained a special relationship with the United States for decades since its founding. It is a safe haven for a people who were nearly wiped out from the worst genocide in modern history. It is also the most reliable and democratic U.S. ally in the Middle East. Disowning Israel would prevent us from protecting our interests in the region, and would shock other close allies like Britain and France. Stein's argument is that Palestinian rights have been trodden on systematically for decades by Israel. Her desire to uphold Palestinian rights is wonderful, and it is my sincere belief that more U.S. politicians should be brave enough to be vocal on the issue. The Palestinians are grossly discriminated against and treated as second class citizens by Israel's government. This is not the solution though; Stein isn't even close. It is equivalent to the United Kingdom ending its special relationship with the United States because our cops brutalize African-American communities. The solution is to be more vocal with their leaders and use our influence with them as leverage. If we end all our financial and military support, we throw away our ability to make their leaders listen, and endanger the Jewish people as a whole. On the bright side, perhaps a Stein administration could make promising new alliances with Iran and Hezbollah.
3. Ban all GMOs and pesticides from the country.
I hate Monsanto as much as the next guy, but GMOs are not some kind of inherent evil. The anti-GMO crowd is part of the left's weirdly uncharacteristic anti-science movement, including groups like the California anti-vaxxers (guess what her position is on vaccines). Stein has claimed that the ban could be lifted if GMO's are found to be safe. If the fact that 88 percent of scientists believe GMOs to be safe does not convince her, however, I am not sure anything will. Even Sanders only supports GMO labeling, and concedes on his webpage that GMO's are not "necessarily bad."
Outside her official platform, she has also suggested that Americans should be distrustful of vaccines, because they are related to "Big-Pharma," and (despite being a medical doctor) somehow refuses to condemn homeopathic remedies. The Green Party platform long stated that: "Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine. We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and, as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches." Stein is a complete hypocrite if she is willing to tout to skeptics of man-made climate change that almost all scientists agree the issue is real, while doubting the overwhelming scientific consensus on vaccines and homeopathic remedies.
Stein also released a statement congratulating Britain's Leave campaign after the referendum. This is despite an overwhelming consensus among British economists that Brexit would be detrimental to the British economy. She stated that "The vote says no to the EU's vision of a world run by and for big business. It is also a rejection of the European political elite and their contempt for ordinary people." Apparently, the statistic that 82 percent of economists believe that Brexit will result in lower household incomes is clear proof that Britain has won a victory against the elites. If you go to her site now, you will find a very different statement. Shortly afterwords, perhaps realizing that her view was wrong (or simply unpopular), she released another statement with the exact opposite position. In this statement, she tells her supporters that she has for a long time "agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it..."
At the end of the day, the vast majority of her policies that differentiate her from Clinton are bad ones. Her policies are not only often worse, but rather, even when they are better, there is no indication that she will get very much passed through a partisan Congress. Her plan to combat climate change, by making the U.S. use only renewable energy, goes further than Clinton's, but the likelihood is that she will not accomplish more than Clinton will in four years. Her proposal to eliminate student debt is wonderful, but she will be forced to compromise and strictly limit the cost of attending public schools. In other words, where Stein is idealistic, Clinton is pragmatic. Where Stein is wrong, Clinton is right.
Editor's note: Read Part 2 of this article here.
