Hillary Clinton: The UU argument against the democratic process

Today is the last day of voting for the Democratic nomination for president. On this day, the media is calling for, predicting, and ushering Hillary Clinton out of the race for the Democratic nomination. However, this is not the end of the democratic process under our representative government.

Hillary will NOT concede the election. Her campaign is mounting an argument of conscience to trump the Obama campaign’s reliance on representative democracy to the various delegates and super delegates.

Surprisingly, Hillary’s stance is not against the Fifth Principle that Unitarian Universalist congregations have agreed to affirm and promote:

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

Why the differentiation between the right of conscience and the democratic process? What happens when these processes conflict? Is it okay for elected officials to circumvent the will of the voters?

I’ll try to surmise the Clinton campaign’s arguments of conscience:

*These are not my arguments*

——————————-

1. The electoral map: To advance our causes, Democrats need to put the best candidate forward. It is immoral to vote for the weaker candidate.

Hillary claims to be the Democratic candidate more likely to win based on the delegate distribution on electoral map and therefore represents the Democrats best chance to win the presidency. Hillary has even been reported as saying of Obama that “He can’t win.”

Go to FiveThirtyEight.com for more.

2. The popular vote: The democratic process is perverted when electoral math overturns the will of the voters. It is immoral to go against the will of the people.

Hillary declares the delegate process to be undemocratic, as she actually won more ‘votes’* than Obama, despite trailing in the representative delegate count.

*This total requires a few conditions in which caucus votes from four states are not counted, but totals from two contests in Florida and Michigan in which both candidates agreed would “not count for anything.” (Campaigning was prohibited and Obama’s name was not even on the Michigan ballot).

3. The gender argument: Hillary’s gender has subjected her to unfair attacks. It is immoral to allow the bigotry of others to change one’s vote.

While Obama’s race has granted him a free pass from criticism, Hillary has faced open sexism in the media. In a just world, she would be seen as the better candidate and would be the nominee.

—————————-

It seems to me that while any one of the arguments may have merit, numbers one and two are inconsistent about the value of the electoral college. And numbers one and three seem to indicate that Hillary is both the most likely to win AND the most likely to fall victim to the attacks of the media. In this way, it seems the collective arguments discount one another.

Assuming Hillary believes her arguments of conscience, she cannot be said to be in violation of the Fifth UU Principle in her soon to be undemocratic quest to win the nomination.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Hillary Clinton: The UU argument against the democratic process”

  1. Bill Baar Says:

    …at least you understand the process. Obama hasn’t won the nomination yet and Hillary has a lot of fight in here.

    This is tough politics. Knowing some of the players from Chicago on each side… they’d be stumped by principles of any sorts… believe me, those don’t figure into their tactics.

  2. Charles Bowser Says:

    Whoa, buddy! Let’s back up a bit on those arugments. Obama had to define himself against his own pastor, a pastor that the Clintons had even supported. (Check Huffpost: images of Bill and Wright embracing). Obama had a to keep arguing that he wasn’t muslim to win in our party <thought only the repubs demanded that). He had to step up and make a speech legitimizing him concerning race. For all Hillary’s complaints she never had to do that.

    And finally with overwhelming evidence that he drew more crowds, caught the minds of the public more than her, he still is not given his due by people like you. If he was a white man that wouldn’t happen.

    Hillary made snide racist and insulting snipes directly towards Obama (have we forgotten the “hard working americans vs black people” comment, or denigrating him and elevating Mccain? how about the “as far as I know he’s not muslim” comment?) so if you are gonna measure her with our faith’s yardstick, she fails starting out the gate.

    She wouldn’t even have the myth of the popular vote if you don’t include the illegal and therefore undemocratic primaries of Florida and Michigan. What she is doing is unconscionably attempting to circumvent the will of the democratic rules and electorate. I am saddened that you are unable to grasp this.

    You want to contort yourself so you can make a passive agressive claim in support of your cynical triangulating hero, then fine. But expect to be called out on it!

    She has no claim under our seven principles to steal Obama’s victory: she has no concience, she has no interest in the dmocratic process, she was only ambitious and ambition to the subversion of democracy is not one of our principals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: