STROINSKI: The final case for Hillary Clinton

I feel as though I have an obligation — a moral duty, some would say — to make one last comprehensive case for Hillary Clinton. As the election comes to a close, we have to decide for ourselves the type of America we want, or maybe even need, going forward. There is progress in Hillary Clinton, in her policy, in her vision and in her voice.

I can comb successively through the fine details of her policy, but this isn’t a policy election. We’re fighting an ideological fight and it goes much deeper than the typical partisan disagreements in Congress. Superficially, we’re talking about “fitness for office,” but we’re really debating whether or not the ideological foundation with which we have built this country is sound and valid.

I can think of no better document to articulate American political thought than the Constitution. Regardless of whether interpreted as-is or as ever-changing, respect for its fundamental purpose is bipartisan. Or, at least, it should be. The ACLU a while back declared Trump a “One-Man Constitutional Crisis,” and they’re not an organization that takes sides. He has “blatantly violate the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution” and “the basic norms of a free and decent society” they said. And we’ve heard him do it, as you can probably recall, on multiple occasions.

Trump wants to open up long-established laws, supports stop-and-frisk, is a proponent of mass surveillance and racial profiling, defends waterboarding and torture tactics, promotes and encourages voter suppression — the list is ad infinitum.

Unfortunately, though, Trump’s attacks go deeper than the Constitution. They threaten our most basic natural rights which, I would argue, exist even when not guaranteed by a person or a piece of paper. They transcend human construct. By virtue of human decency, which does exist believe it or not, there are just certain things we deserve — life, liberty, movement, free speech, freedom of religion, education — and in a Trump administration, those things would not be guaranteed for everybody.

This is someone who is not presidential. I know it sounds like it might be a good thing when he says what he wants and has not been influenced by the abuses and corruption of Washington politics. But, trust me, it’s not.

A president is someone who stands for something, who gets involved in public service because she thinks her time, talent and resources are best suited in the public sphere, helping people. A president is someone who has rhetorical talent, can unite rather than divide, is calm in the face of foreign or domestic terror. You don’t have to be an intellectual to be president (although given Madison, Quincy Adams or Wilson, you can be) but you do have to be a politician. I know that label is partially negative this election cycle, but we’ve had politicians for presidents practically our entire history. They are skillful orators and know how to work the game to get what is necessary out of it. I mean, have you seen the movie “Lincoln?”

Politics is a game that has to be well understood and played accordingly. The most hard-headed, ideological people make very bad politicians and subsequent presidents because the entirety of their complicated dreams will never be realized.

Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate, marred by political scandals and defined by her moderate policy. She’s not the liberal dream like Sanders was, and she’s not as fiery and revolutionary as Donald Trump. She’s the practical choice; it’s not romantic, it’s not innovative, it’s not new. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. As I said earlier, practical exchanges and relationship building is how politics is done. The rallies, the scathing debates, the baby-kissing — that is not politics. That’s campaigning, showmanship, crowd-charming. It doesn’t get bills passed and it doesn’t do anyone any good once in office.

Hillary Clinton, although self-admittedly bad at campaigning, unlike her husband and boss, is nonetheless fantastic at doing politics. Senators from both parties have praised her work ethic and commented on her devotion to even the smallest policy detail. She knows the system, has worked in Congress and the Department of State and understands what it takes. She may need to be pushed in terms of policy, but she’s proved responsive to such efforts.

This is a woman who understands the social contract forged between the people and herself. If an overwhelming majority of her constituents push hard and loudly enough, she will have no choice but to move; that’s the nature of politics in America.

Sovereignty rests in the American people; public servants have to do what the American public wills them to do. Resisting push for social and political change can and often does result in instability and revolution. Incremental change, however, is key to preserving our rights and security.

Hence, I implore you to vote Hillary Clinton on Nov. 8. Is she a perfect candidate? Certainly not. But often, the wants and desires of our conscience do not coincide perfectly with the necessary salvation of the masses. It is a luxury to vote your conscience. What is good for you isn’t good for everyone else. In this election, we have to think of not ourselves but of the masses. The general whole will be significantly worse off under Trump than they would Clinton. This choice is not just significant — it is moral.