Progressives, Follow Sanders Lead This November

In conservative S.E. Cupp's latest New York Daily News op-ed, she discussed the latest trend in politics, Republicans throwing their support behind Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Republicans like Rep. Richard Hanna of New York, who thinks Donald Trump is a "national embarrassment," and a top adviser to Jeb Bush, Sally Bradshaw, who will vote for Clinton if the vote in Florida is close.

The crazy thing about Republicans like Hanna and Bradshaw isn't that they're breaking ranks with the Republican party. It's that they're breaking ranks to support a leftist candidate that most Republicans find "contemptible," as Cupp refers to Clinton in her column -- to prevent an even more despicable candidate from winning the presidency, Donald J. Trump.

Who can blame these Republicans? At the DNC convention, independent and former mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg said Trump was a "con man." Trump isn't just a con man, but as Cupp describes, Trump is a "bigot, megalomaniac, and hypocrite," on a myriad of issues. That alone should concern a voter. However, more concerning, Trump is obsessed with securing a way to make use of nuclear weapons against his perceived enemies. That should be the number one reason to get involved in political activism against a man who cares little for the terms in the Geneva Conventions, and one who lacks respect for NATO.

Even though I'm mistrustful of conservatives (in politics that is), I find it admirable and brave that quite a few Republicans (although not enough) have put their foot down and are protesting the candidacy of Donald Trump unequivocally and unapologetically. Cupp is right, "It's safe to say that history will be kind to those who had the courage to denounce the nativist, reckless, uninformed and ugly candidacy of Donald Trump."

I wish more progressives would do the same. Instead, the lust of anger against Clinton has demented reality in their brains.

Sahil Kapur and Joshua Green of Bloomberg spoke with some anti-Clinton, pro-Sanders supporters back in June. San Francisco Community organizer Eric Brooks, 52, said he will "... never vote for Clinton." Brooks doesn't believe supporting Stein in the election will push Trump to victory come November. He is wrong. Just ask Al Gore and George W. Bush about the high-cost stake of a third-party candidate.

Perry Mitchell, a 31-year-old nonprofit worker from Baltimore, told Kapur and Green that she wouldn't ever dare vote for Hillary Clinton, "There's zero percent chance that Hillary Clinton could ever get my vote." Michell stressed she's never compromised on her vote, not ever, nor was she planning to this November. When it comes to voting, Mitchell proposes her values and votes with her soul.

"She's a corporate candidate. I don't vote for corporate candidates. I don't do the lesser of two evils."
Of course, I respect the choice of Brooks and Michell, even though I vehemently disagree with them, on the fundamentals and safety and security of our country's democracy. In fact, I find them to be zealots who are concerned only about how the election affects them personally instead of others like minorities. If they thought of that subgroup, the minorities, they would defer to the reality of a Trump presidency and note the danger in that scenario.

Brooks and Mitchell aren't the only ones dismayed by Hillary Clinton. There's so much animosity directed at Clinton from the left and right that even Sen. Bernie Sanders hasn't been able to move the "Bernie or Bust" crowd's sentimentality.

Lucky for us, Sanders isn't giving up. Pivoting back to Cupp's column, she refers to this tactic as "permission structure." Which notes an understanding of one's disgust for one candidate or another, but permits one to check their ego and think of the greater good. Cupp admits this is a harder strategy to sell and succeed at, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

In LA Times, Sanders writes about the utter importance of voting for Clinton in November.
"Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance — improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment. It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And as a leader of the 'birther movement,' he tried to undermine the legitimacy of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view. That's the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans."
Sanders is right. We must defeat Trump in November. We must defeat a man who was reportedly enthralled by Hilter's Mein Kampf and allegedly keeps Hilter's speeches by his bedside, as reported by Forward.

We must beat a man that prefers dividing races and separating families and believing he's our messiah. Clinton isn't perfect, but she's isn't a dictator in waiting.

Voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson would guarantee Trump's victory. Thus everything we've ever known about separation of powers, religious freedom, civil rights, human rights, and human decency would be out the door, gone forever.

I respect one's right to vote their conscience, but as Cupp mentions, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "A bad conscience is easier to cope with than a bad reputation." That's something important to think about, don't you think?

[Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images]