For progressives, would Hillary be the better choice?

Nothing I write is going to alter the outcome of the election, so I'd like this to be considered what it is, not an endorsement of Hillary (who I now prefer), but a case that if Hillary wins the presidency it might be a good thing for the political revolution.

Those of us who have any respect for Hillary know that her record is overall progressive. While some have come to believe that she is some kind of reactionary, the fact remains that almost all her stances were at worst mainstream Democrat and at best progressive.

Her worst votes had as much of an impact as Bernie's best votes. Hillary would not have stopped the Iraq War with her vote anymore than Bernie stopped DOMA with his vote. But, in general, she has a progressive record, and most of the controversies she faces can easily be defended on progressive grounds.

Her choice of taking money from Wall Street for the campaign is simply the way it is. Asking a candidate not to play by the existing rules would be like asking Bernie not to participate in caucuses because they discriminate against the majority of voters who don't have the time, energy, connections, or courage to engage in those often convoluted systems. Money might corrupt, but those are the rules of the game.

Her support of the Iraq War should be seen through a New York lens. New Yorkers were traumatized by 9/11, so much so that even the liberal New York Times endorsed the Iraq War. Many New Yorkers were afraid to go out, afraid to take the subway, afraid to cross bridges, and afraid to go to work. Her vote for the Iraq War was wrong, but during that time New York City was afraid. The fact that she won New York by a more than 2 to 1 margin in 2006 shows that not many liberals held that vote against her.

Some progressives attack her for providing legal representation to a child rapist, yet educated progressives generally believe that legal representation is a right, and even bad people are entitled to the best defense possible.

Her foreign policy has been framed as right wing by some, yet the fact is that the Obama years have been relatively peaceful. After going from the edge of war with Iran and North Korea, our relations with both are far less threatening. The decision to support the Arab Spring was a brave and risky one, but it demonstrated for the first time in modern history that secular voices have a lot of power. While the Arab Spring did not score many victories, it put governments of the region on that they must take into account not only the religious community, but the secular community as well.

And then of course is the fact that she and her husband have overall good records on women's rights, gay rights, and civil rights. While they did some things wrong, they actually did a lot of good things. Those groups have more rights today thanks to specific legislation and actions both Hillary and Bill took while they were in power. A good example of what Bill Clinton did was to grant asylum to gays fleeing persecution in other countries. That was a controversial and brave choice in the 1990s, when the dominant Republicans and religious right were arguing that being gay was a choice.

On other issues, Hillary and Bernie have substantive disagreements that don't necessarily make one more left than the other. For instance, Hillary, like Obama, supports a limited amount of fracking to help the US achieve energy independence. Bernie does not. Hillary, like many climate scientists, supports using nuclear energy as part of the transition to renewable energy sources. Bernie instead backs the environmentalists, who generally oppose nuclear energy. On guns and immigration, Hillary is historically to the left of Bernie, though not by much. On college education and minimum wage, she's to the right of Bernie, though not by much.

But, the point is not that Hillary is more progressive than Bernie (she's not), just that her actions can be fairly seen through a progressive lens. With only a few exceptions, it is not difficult to defend her on progressive grounds.

But, even though she is a little to the right of Bernie maybe she would be the better choice if we want real change.

When Obama got elected, he also helped sweep in a Democratic Congress. During those two years, major legislation was passed. The Stimulus Bill, which created tens of thousands of blue collar jobs, invested heavily in renewable energy, put 100s of billions of dollars into healthcare and education, and so much more was like nothing we had seen since the New Deal. Healthcare reform, a dream of Democrats since at least the early 1970s, came to fruition in a tough battle where every single Republican voted against it, and the Democrats were forced to woo their conservative Blue Dog Democrats. It was an awesome two years.

But, then in 2010 everyone stayed home, especially the millennials. In both 2010 and 2014, only 20% of millennials bothered to vote, and needless to say Republicans gained control, and Obama was forced to govern from the center and use executive actions to get anything at all progressive done. Millennials failed us big time, and in fact in 2014 only supported Democrats 54% to 43%.
I argue that if Trump or Sanders get elected, there's the risk that the same thing that happened with Obama will happen again -- a large part of the anti-establishment movement will be co-opted or will feel it's achieved its aim and largely disband.

But, what happens if the election is between Trump and Hillary and Hillary wins? The anti-establishment movement will certainly not be satisfied. You have the millennials who have no love of the establishment, even if they vote for Hillary, and you have the Trump supporters who feel the same way. Doesn't this lay the groundwork for a real political revolution? If Hillary wins and the movement remains strong, it may become something we haven't seen since the era of the great labor movements and great civil rights movements.

Mao Tse Tung said, "A single spark can start a prairie fire." Well, in Bernie and Trump we have two sparks. If they both lose, that may be enough to start a real political revolution, one that is run by the people, not the institutions of power.