Mark Bebawi, the host of the radio show The Monitor, called me up a few hours before the debate. He told me that his show was truncated to carry the Democracy Now! Pre-Debate coverage. He asked me if I could guest on his show to discuss the upcoming Presidential Debate. Of course, I said yes. I asked if he needed me in the studio or could we do it by phone. He said by phone would be OK, so he called into my office for what turned out to be a good conversation.
We discussed several issues of consequence. We covered Donald Trump’s issues with race. His need to placate evangelicals with Supreme Court picks anathema to progressives to maintain the Evangelical base and more. Most importantly Mark Bebawi asked a rhetorical question. For those who for strong moral and socio-political reasons who object to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, why should they vote for one of them?
My answer was simple. Sometimes you have to live to fight another day. But this morning I had a better answer I posted on a Facebook Live video I made today. I said the following.
Just to be clear, though, battles sometimes must be fought incrementally. Supreme court justices have lifetime appointments. If you believe that 1) either Clinton or Trump will win and 2) that Clinton will appoint marginally more progressive judges than Trump, then it is not a vote of fear but a vote of self-interest till we continue the footwork to get more progressives that have the interest of the poor and middle-class in the forefront. We could get a supreme court that reinterprets the constitution that prevents those of us making change from even operating.
Let me give a concrete example. If we get a Supreme Court unfriendly to net neutrality, broadcasting on Facebook, Periscope and other platforms could prohibitively high allowing only the plutocracy the opportunity to message en mass.
Clinton ultimately won the debate. What can we expect going forward?
