Part 1: On Hillary Clinton; Political Chameleon

The presidential election of 1800 spewed forth a fascinating situation in which the two runners for the Democratic-Republicans received the same number of electoral votes. The election was to be decided in the House of Representatives and though Aaron Burr seemed the likely victor from such a situation, Hamilton managed to secure the presidency for his main political rival Jefferson. Why would Hamilton, ideologically and politically opposed to nearly everything Thomas Jefferson stood for, seek to hand his enemy the presidency? Despite endless disagreements with Jefferson, Hamilton saw him as the lesser of two evils when compared to Aaron Burr.

In a letter to Harrison Gray Otis, Hamilton wrote, “Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself – thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement – and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands.” A similar situation is laid out before us in the current Democratic primary race. On the one hand, you have the opinionated and seemingly idealistic Bernie Sanders; the other is trying to hold the politically amorphous and determined Hillary Clinton. If any hope of preserving our democracy is to survive this presidential election, Bernie Sanders must be the Democratic nominee.

The list of issues on which she has reversed her opinion(ever dependent on the polls) is a perfect illustration of her political malleability. Browse through her evolution on issues such as same-sex marriage, trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP, the Iraq War, and mass-incarceration. The consistent pattern of shape-shifting is a clear indication that she is willing to take any stance that will earn her votes.If we were to elect her as president, which Hillary would we receive? She would no longer need to cater to the voters as much as she currently is required to do; she would be more liable to comply with her donors’ interests.

She criticizes Wall Street and claims she will break up big banks if they continue receiving failing grades from regulators and yet, the financial sector accounted for more than 10% of the $157.8 million contributed to her bid by the end of 2015. On what side will she stand once she has taken office? It’s likely that she will alter her stance to benefit her donors, just like she did with healthcare when Big Pharma paid her more than $2 million for 13 speeches. She used to be a strong advocate for a universal healthcare plan but now wages war on the very same idea she used to defend. This is an indicator of how she will likely behave in the future; with corporate influence seemingly ever-growing in our political system, this prospect should be blood-curdling for the average voter.

The prospect of having a president so clearly invested in her own financial and political standing is terrifying. Clinton will not stand for the people’s rights as president but will bend over backward and jump through hoops to satisfy her corporate sponsors and donors. With our republic already withering under pressure from corporations and excessively wealthy individuals, a Clinton presidency will only condemn our republic to a quiet death covered up by the media(major donors to Clinton’s campaign) with a series of proxy wars initiated under Hillary Clinton: the war-monger.