Daniel Brown’s April 23 My Turn column — “Better than the alternative” — is right on the money. If Bernie supporters (I am one of them) choose not to vote for ideological reasons if Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate for president, their absence on election day could hand the election to whomever the Republican candidate turns out to be. The two apparent Republican presidential candidates would further shred the remains of our former democracy and macho man us into military confrontation.
One of the major reasons many progressives and liberals don’t support Hillary is that she is a well-documented hawk committed to military intervention as a primary way for America to achieve its global goals. She voted for the Iraq war.
Most Americans are war weary in response to the enormous drain of lives and money caused by that unnecessary Iraq war and its ever-expanding consequences. One consequence is a spreading distrust and hate of America in the Middle East, thus, the birth and reality of ISIS and the politically overblown fears of terrorism.
“Throughout her career,” writes Mark Landler in the New York Times on April 24, Hillary Clinton “has displayed instincts on foreign policy that are more aggressive than those of President Obama — and most Democrats.”
That said, “One of the problems the president (Obama) has,” writes Landler, “which weakens his diplomatic efforts, is that leaders don’t believe he would use military power. That’s an issue that would separate the president from Hillary Clinton rather dramatically,” Landler says. “She would look at military force as another realistic option, but only where there is no other option.” I have no faith that Trump or Cruz would look at military force as an “option.”
Like Daniel Brown, I would much prefer to have Hillary as commander in chief than Trump or Cruz. I hope, as Brown does, that the millions of newly energized Bernie supporters will agree and vote to make it happen.
John Bos
Shelburne Falls