With the american elections drawing near, the attention of the world’s population grows stronger over both candidates -Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump- to the presidency of the United States of America. Sexual scandals arising from the side of Donald Trump seem to take part of the attention away from the negative points of the Democrat candidate. Hillary Clinton seems to be clearly the best option for Americans and the rest of the world. Nevertheless, I do believe that this certainty is dangerous.
People are aware of the lies both sides have established during their interventions as candidates. Donald Trump lying about his taxes and his fiscal past, and Hillary Clinton lying about her e-mail situation as well as her past actions as secretary of state and member of Congress. Neither of the sides have been honest in their campaigns, and it is clearer every day.
Yet, while Clinton’s position seems to be less impactful in the global situation than that of bigotry and fearmongering Trump has created, I will take the freedom to challenge that idea. Let’s begin with one simple fact. Hillary Clinton was a faithful encourager of NAFTA. While the opinion of experts was divided during the time, Clinton was strongly in favour of such treaty, and sought its approval. This might not seem as something that could be worse than racism and bigotry, but looking at the effects it left in Mexico, and the economy of Americans, the treaty was disastrous. Mexican businesses couldn’t compete against American corporations, and workers were relegated to bad positions with very bad salaries. Americans lost their jobs, and the overall economy of the middle class was damaged. Still, Clinton decided to encourage a trade deal that was predicted to fail, and with this, provide a strong support for the establishment.
One analogue example in today’s politics is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP seeks to eliminate market regulations between 12 countries from the Pacific Region. Clinton seems to be against the treaty as stated in her interventions, but we may think otherwise. Hillary’s running mate, Tim Kaine, is one of the biggest supporters of the TPP, and his attempts to shift his position have been extremely unconvincing. What this suggests is that the Clinton administration will seek to approve the TPP, just as the Obama administration is currently doing. The TPP is dangerous for the nations involved, since it seeks to eliminate regulations imposed to corporations, giving free ground for irresponsible exploitation of resources and the labour force,as well as crushing small businesses. An example of this is what happened with the corn industry in Mexico under NAFTA. The Americans provided a huge subsidy to their corn industry, and the surplus they created ultimately poured into Mexico. The result was the dropping of local corn prices, and Mexican farmers could not make a living. The TPP will provide a similar scenario for undeveloped nations inside the Partnership.
Hillary’s links to Wall Street do not seem to help her either. Her campaign has been financed by multinational banks and corporations which have been known to cause the 2009 crash, and keeping developing countries under financial restrictions. While she claims that limiting Wall Street is in her plans, this is put in doubt by her closeness to firms like Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley. In which world would a candidate which has been paid huge amounts of money to give speeches for Wall Streets, limit the power this entity has? it is not seem believable.
Another reason why Hillary Clinton could be more dangerous than her Republican counterpart is her warmongering past. She has been in favour of the majority, if not every war the United States has taken part of since she’s been in office. As Secretary of State, she helped implement the drone strike campaign Obama has been famous for. While this could be interpreted as national security by American enthusiasts, it is clear that the effects this wars and strikes the United States have been performing have damaged the stability of countless regions and, of course, affected the economies of developing countries. An example of this is the Libyan revolution, where the government of Muammar Gaddafi was forcefully destituted, and Gaddafi himself brutally murdered. Clinton was one of the main pushers of the NATO intervention, and turned a country with a 4.2% economic growth rate, an 88.4% literacy rate and life expectancy of 74.5 years into a failed state.
While the elections seem to focus on the moral high ground, Clinton’s actions have been blurred and hidden from sight by Trumps scandalous statements. It is easy to misguide people into turning a blind eye towards a candidate which has engaged in the destabilization of poor regions since her debut in politics. While I don’t stand for Trump at all, I cannot stand for Hillary Clinton either. The following question arises from this statement: Who am I supporting then? While I believe the candidate from the green party, Jill Stein, is a good option, I understand she stands no chance. Americans are trapped in a very tough decision: a bigot or a warmonger. I believe there is an escape for Americans, and that is to sabotage the elections. Avoiding the urns in these elections might be the only option to send an actual message. Telling huge corporations that people do play a role in democracy and have the power to change the course of the situation is the next step for a revolution which was once ignited by Bernie Sanders.
Pablo Espinosa for ARCODF.