Today is the the Massachusetts Primary. Last week the Boston Globe published an editorial about strategic voting. Simply put, the paper is beseeching Republican and unenrolled voters to cast their votes against Trump (or, if inclined to go with the paper’s endorsed candidate, John Kasich). However, as registered Democrats, Mr. Mad Cow and I have to decide between Hillary and Bernie.
Hillary has an impressive resume, having served as a Senator and Secretary of State — throughout the Congressional hearings on Benghazi, she proved her political stamina and job readiness — and she scored the first ever endorsement from Planned Parenthood. As a woman, and as mother to a little girl, that is really important. Bernie believes in a single-payer system where healthcare is a right, and he has railed against income inequality his entire career — his webpage says “Nobody who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty” — how can anyone argue with that? And I must admit his passion is inspiring.
And then there’s the liberal strategic voting question: do I throw my hat in with idealism or do I go with pragmatism? The matter makes think of the French presidential election of 2002, which I got to experience in real time with the locals in Lille. To quickly sum up the situation, the left leaning voters split their ballots among several candidates, enabling far right conservative Jean-Marie Le Pen to move on to the second round of national voting alongside conservative Jacques Chirac. (On a side note, Monsieur Le Pen endorsed Donald Trump. Mon Dieu!)
Of course, the US system is different from the French, and regardless of whom Mr. MC and I vote for in the primary, we will have a Democratic option in the general election. Whatever decision Mr. MC and I make, by exercising our right to vote, we set a good example for the Vachette. And that may be the most important thing we can do.