if i was an american, i would probably weigh things differently. i may not like clinton very much. i might be to her left on 19/20 issues - and consequently disagree with virtually everything she believes in. but, if i lived in a swing state, i'd probably drag myself out and force myself to vote for her.
probably.
i'd be voting against her opponent, not in favour of her.
what i've meant to say is that, as a canadian, whether trump or clinton wins is of little consequence to me. but, trump may be mildly preferable. let me restate my reasons.
1) trump may be less imperialist than clinton. we can state with certainty that clinton is an imperialist, neo-con interventionist. it is less clear where trump stands, but there is reason to think he may believe that it's all a waste of money.
2) trump may be better on trade. hillary is very obviously in support of the tpp [regardless of what she says]. trump may act to tear these agreements up.
maybe i should expand a little on this.
before nafta, there was something called the fta. it was just canada and the united states. then this was expanded to include mexico and that was nafta.
my position on free trade is very similar to that of the canadian liberal party. they supported the idea of free trade with the united states, but opposed the fta; it was the conservatives that put the deal through. i would also support the idea of free trade with mexico, but only under the condition that they pass more strenuous labour laws. see, that's the real problem. it's not that trade exists. it's that companies have a way out of adhering to labour laws - they just need to move to mexico. the currency thing is also a factor, but if the mexican state would catch up on regulations then most of the problems would resolve themselves very quickly. and, why aren't they? because the mexican state is horribly corrupt.
so, i would like to see nafta dissolved until mexico can get it's labour laws up to par. this is the same kind of process that the eu uses around it's member states. and, let the other central american states in, too, if they want.
i would argue, though, that dissolving nafta does not dissolve the fta - even if it needs a little work, too, to be actual free trade and not just investors rights.
so, that means i support free trade between the united states and canada, but oppose nafta [until mexico pulls itself up].
i would have similar views on the tpp - although i would support an open trade agreement between the united states, canada, australia, new zealand and japan. i'd support free trade with europe, and large amounts of south america. it's just a question of whether the labour laws are up to par or not.
clinton may claim she sort of agrees. we all know she doesn't. trump may have different logic, but he gets to the same point as i do. he is to her left on this issue.
3) health care. as a canadian, my prerogative is that you adopt a single-payer health care system. obamacare is of no benefit to the maintenance of my country's system - it is just the continuation of the status quo of a huge corrupt market on the border. i would like to see you abolish the market. the easiest way to do this is universal coverage over single-payer, but it's the abolition of the market that i'm concerned with.
hillary is not in favour of abolishing this market. trump is less clear. but, obamacare is a huge obstacle in abolishing the market, because people have come to accept it as a compromise. so, any step to abolish obamacare is within my best interests, as a canadian liberal that supports single payer and sees the american system as a perpetual threat to it.
4) the dollar. this is a bit sneaky. i think trump may crash the dollar. and, that benefits me in a lot of ways, as well.
so, again: i'm not endorsing trump. i'm not arguing you'd be better off under trump. i'm just pointing out that i need to disengage. as a canadian anti-war leftist, i simply don't think that taking a pro-clinton position is in my self-interest.
--
i should also remind some middle of the road political "moderates" or perhaps people under thirty - that free trade is not a minor concern on the left. it was the central focus of the left throughout the 90s, culminating in major protests in seattle, quebec city and other places. the alter-globalization movement fizzled out after 9/11 under the effects of police state powers passed to "protect us from terrorists". but, the issue has never lost importance to leftists.
it's not just another thing in the list. it's the single, biggest issue - outside of putting an end to the wars created by 9/11.
this might be something bernie doesn't realize. he might want to do some polling; he may be shocked to find out that only a small percentage of his backers have any interest in getting tough on wall street at all.
frankly, the whole wall street spiel is actually pretty much my biggest disagreement with him. i would support reinstating glass-steagall. but, i think a lender of last resort is pretty important. and, i know that the so-called bailouts are actually loans.
but, i'll happily put that nonsense aside to talk about his broader prescriptions. and, the stance on trade is absolutely central. i may be giving away that it's so fundamentally important that i'd consider supporting the republicans over it - if i really believed they'd act to break it up.