09 June 2016

A Lesser Evil?

So I'll be stuck choosing the lesser evil this November. There's no question that Drumpf is the greater evil — rumor has it that Cthulhu turned down an offer of the vice-presidential slot on the Heffalump ticket because the top of the ticket is too extreme. (Or, at least, I'm willing to start such a rumor.)

But that does not make me happy about the Jackass side. Sanders lost; as a democratic socialist, he's a Euro-centrist. Admittedly, that's a lot more acceptable to me than an American centrist, but it's still much too conservative. And Hillary has a serious problem, even aside from her centrist-tinged-with-women's-issues politics.

No, it's not Benghazi. That's the flip side — or, perhaps, mere extension — of the Desert One fiasco. Central command cannot effectively control fast-developing tactical situations with known-incomplete knowledge. Desert One shows what happens when they try... and technology has little to do with it. Benghazi shows what happens when central command exercises restraint: A paroxysm of ideological opportunists second-guessing field decisions from the comfort of their think-tank parlours... not one of whom has actual experience trying to manage a covert or asymmetric operation from on site, let alone several thousand kilometers away.

No, it's not the e-mail server problem. Leaving aside that the guidance offered varied between incomprehensible and counterproductive, at least 80% of the "classified" material on that server — like every other server in the US government that contains classifed material — was overclassified, and perhaps merited no classification at all. Remember, too, that Pvt Manning was working with State Department data at the time of that breach. In short, there should have been better security... but "better" also means protecting what needs to be protected and not just labels. It also means refraining from slapping a classification on events and data that might embarass someone, or hurt someone's career progression; I have little hope that things will change in that respect, but it sure as hell isn't/wasn't/won't be Ms Clinton's responsibility or ability to force that change in culture.

Instead, it's her family structure. I cannot and will not tolerate nepotism. Haven't we learned anything from the Bushes? From the Daleys? From the Madigans? From the Pendergasts? I could go on, and on, and on, without varying from the foundational principle: The main purpose of representative democracy is to eliminate hereditary/familial succession of political power, whether via corrupt/flawed electoral processes or any other mechanism. Of course, the familial impulse of the politically entitled classes runs the opposite direction... as in this instance. I probably cannot make myself vote for her on that ground alone: I voted for her husband the first time around, and that's her family's quota. For at least another generation.