This is apparently the issue the Clinton supporters, even of the "lesser of two evils" variety, use as a backstop. Never mind Clinton's reliance upon austerity planning and militarism, both of which suggest deep convulsions within society in their own rights. What's frightening to them is Trump -- his lack of proper manners, his sexism and racism, his bullying behavior. They think he's a "fascist," and they love to cite a New Yorker article that shows that he's a fascist by calling him a fascist a bunch of times. Their favorite tactic is to threaten us, over and over again, with the prospect of President Trump, as if the fact that we survived a first President Clinton in the 1990s is going to make a second President Clinton anything but a horrorshow in this era.

Now, indeed, Trump is a bully. But the critical issue here is not one of whether Donald Trump would make a lousy President -- he clearly would. Both sides agree upon that. The question at hand is one of whether or not Clinton would save us from Trumpism. I don't think so, and here I'm going to suggest a set of supporting arguments that might help make the case. So here are four propositions which I think defeat the case.

1. All of those supposedly dangerous attributes of Donald Trump are merely show-biz amplifications of things that are going on right now.

Let's start with the Muslims. The government is screwing over Muslim immigrants right now. R.L. Stephens:

Donald Trump is offensive. But our reality is far worse than his rhetoric.

There are 15,000 informants spying within Muslim communities in New York alone.

The US and Canada cooperated to disappear and torture at least one Muslim simply for knowing someone who knows someone who *might* be connected to an Islamic paramilitary group. Muslims have to be extra careful when traveling and calling abroad, and especially when sending money or they could end up in prison.

Abroad, we arm Islamic paramilitary death squads that slaughter whole families. Millions of people from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Somalia and elsewhere live under the constant threat of drone strikes raining down bombs at any moment.

The Supreme Court changed the standard for pleadings, one of the oldest elements in the law, in order to ensure Muslims could be indefinitely detained.

That's of course to say nothing of the daily harassment and psychological wounds that so often accompany simply living as a Muslim day to day in this country.

All of that brutality and depravity is not Donald Trump. That's us. Taking particular offense at Donald Trump, as if he's some sort of hateful outlier, will not absolve us.

Let's get serious about reality and get to work.

Oh and Trump wants to punish women who have abortions omigod. Meanwhile, good luck getting an abortion in America today. From The Guardian:

It's not just Texas: abortion clinics are rapidly closing in liberal states, too

As high-profile battles rage in conservative states, clinics are closing just as fast in traditionally abortion-friendly states – without many people noticing

And of course, horror of horrors, Trump want to deport twelve million people. Meanwhile:

http://fusion.net/story/252637/obama-has-deported-more-immigrants-than-a...

Obama has deported more immigrants than any other president. Now he’s running up the score.

And then there's this horrifying border wall Trump advocates. Except of course that Obama already put up a border fence, and this is, as Obama suggested in that piece, basically a negotiation.

(Perhaps I've only scratched the surface of Trump's reprehensible opinions. Feel free to suggest more of them in the comments section.)

Finally, there is the notion that Trump is a fascist. Here's an analysis from people who know what fascism is:

So if Donald Trump isn't a fascist, what is he?

Well, he's a right-wing populist. And while fascists are rare in 2015, right-wing populists are not. In fact, it's kind of weird that America hasn't had a real one before now. The UK has the UK Independence Party (UKIP); France has Marine Le Pen and the Front National; Germany has Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the anti-Muslim Pegida movement; Sweden has the Sweden Democrats; the Netherlands has the Party for Freedom and its leader, Geert Wilders.

These parties have a lot in common with Trump. They're fiercely anti-immigration and particularly critical of Islam, couching their bigotry as a reasonable precaution and stoking fear about homegrown terrorism. They draw support away from more establishmentarian, business-friendly right-wing parties. They tend to be led by individual, charismatic figures without whom they'd be substantially weakened. They tend to be more sympathetic to welfare programs and the safety net than traditional conservatives, much as Trump has vocally defended Social Security against more traditional candidates like Chris Christie who would cut it.

But they are not fascists. They still believe in democracy, and they want traditional liberal democratic protections for their white base.

As for Hillary Clinton, you'd have to question her belief in democracy after observing the multiple instances of voter fraud committed by her associates during this year's Democratic Party primaries. How isn't that fascist? But the purpose of this diary is not to put Hillary Clinton on trial. The purpose of this diary is to argue that a vote for Clinton will not save us from Trumpism, and if Trumpism is going forward full steam ahead today under Obama, who by any measure is less of a devout rightist than Clinton, then how is it we are supposed to assume that a vote for Clinton is going to save us from Trumpism?

2. Clinton's moves are going to enable Trumpism by fortifying its seed-bed.

Some of Trump's supporters, admittedly, are violent white supremacists. They are drawn to Trump as an "antiestablishment" candidate because the system has screwed them over. Meanwhile, African-Americans, who were even bigger losers under the Obama regime, have responded by supporting Obama and voting for Clinton. Why this move toward Clinton, when they could have voted for Sanders? Here's what Eric Foner thinks:

 Black voters, moreover, are extremely protective of President Obama. They recognize, more viscerally than many whites, how much of the invective hurled at the president has a racist tinge. No white president has been forced to produce his birth certificate to demonstrate his citizenship or been interrupted during a State of the Union address and accused of lying. When Obama is called “lazy” or a “food-stamp president,” the language, among blacks, evokes stereotypes deeply rooted in America’s racial past. To some extent, when blacks vote for Clinton they are casting one last ballot for Obama.

More recently, though, Clinton promised to put her husband in charge of the economy. This very likely means more austerity planning. Bill Clinton's big claim to fame in this decade has been his attendance at Peterson Foundation fiscal summits. The Peterson Foundation, if you aren't familiar, is the hub of austerity planning in the US. It's the origin of the Catfood Commission, the sequester, Obama's "Grand Bargain" plan, and his one attempt at cutting Social Security. From the Wikipedia page:

2014 Fiscal Summit

On May 14, 2014, the Peterson Foundation hosted the 2014 Fiscal Summit: Our Economic Future. The summit convened top lawmakers and policy experts to discuss the connection between the nation's long term debt and economic growth, opportunity, and mobility. Participants included President Bill Clinton, Governor Chris Christie, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator Patty Murray, Senator Rob Portman, and Alan Greenspan.[12]
2013 Fiscal Summit

On May 7, 2013, the Peterson Foundation hosted the 2013 Fiscal Summit: Facing the Future. The summit convened leading thinkers to discuss evolving trends and challenges facing the U.S. on issues such as demographics, immigration, education, and national security. Participants included President Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Senator Patty Murray, Representative Paul Ryan, Co-Founder of Synthetic Genomics Inc. Juan Enriquez, National Council of La Raza CEO Janet Murguia,Admiral Michael Mullen, and Institute of Medicine President Harvey Fineberg.[13]
2012 Fiscal Summit

On May 15, 2012, the Peterson Foundation hosted the 2012 Fiscal Summit: America's Case for Action. the summit gathered leaders from government, policy, academia, and the media to explore how to forge the political will necessary to achieve lasting fiscal reform. Participants included President Bill Clinton, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Senators Rob Portman and Chris Van Hollen, House Speaker John Boehner, California Representative Xavier Becerra, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.[14]
2011 Fiscal Summit

On May 25, 2011 the Peterson Foundation hosted the 2011 Fiscal Summit: Solutions for America’s Future. Building on the previous year’s Summit, the event brought together six think tanks from across the ideological spectrum to propose plans to address America’s long-term debt and deficits as part of its Solutions Initiative.[15]

In addition to representatives from the think tanks, participants included President Bill Clinton, who delivered keynote remarks, House Budget Committee Chairman Representative Paul Ryan, Obama administration economic advisor Gene Sperling, Co-Chairman of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Senator Alan K. Simpson, Honeywell International CEO David M. Cote, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, members from the Gang of Six, PBS NewsHour correspondent Gwen Ifill and The New York Times columnist David Brooks.[16][17]

More austerity planning will mean what? Government services will be cut again. Everyone will be poorer, and the white poor will cling to right-wing populists (like Trump) while the nonwhite poor will cling to establishment Democrats. If we don't get Trump this cycle, perhaps the next one.

3. "Left" support for Clinton will grant the high ground, and the antiestablishment label, to right-wing populists like Trump.

It's quite clear at this point that Clinton is the establishment candidate. She's maxed out all of the big Democrat donors, she's got most of Congress to endorse her campaign, the DLC is in her right pocket, and she's currently soliciting the Bush Republicans for money. So who is running against an establishment which promises us more war, "corporate trade deals" which cede US sovereignty to ISDS courts, and austerity planning? Not the "Left." The "Left" is busy telling the world that a vote for Clinton will protect America from Trumpism. This is a self-nullifying move. Trump has already told the world he won't touch Social Security, whereas Clinton plans to turn it into a welfare program. Does the "Left" think people are going to listen to them in this regard? Supporting Clinton is a self-nullifying move. It's supporting the people in what the late George Carlin called the "big club," the folks who are "going after your Social Security money so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street." The critical passage is at 1:47 of this video.

More and more people in America are recognizing the truth of Carlin's routine, here. Who was the genius who thought up the idea that they're all going to be magically persuaded by the idea that "a vote for Clinton will save us from Trumpism"?

4. Clinton will in all likelihood give us Trumpism herself, while (perhaps) delegating its responsibility to someone else.

Look, this is a woman who campaigned for the Welfare Bill and the Crime Bill, and at a later point in her political career she developed a foreign policy that was the envy of PNAC. If she can't be trusted, that doesn't make people who argue that "she can't be trusted, but she can be trusted" look good. The fact that she occasionally dresses herself up as a liberal after having made, at best, a trivial contribution to liberal causes, doesn't make her look good -- it makes us look phony if we, for whatever reason, support her.

5. Clinton will be under impeachment proceedings.

The Republicans may succeed in impeaching and convicting her, too, which would significantly weaken the power of the office of the Presidency while empowering already-powerful Republicans not yet in office.

All told, then, the proposition "a vote for Clinton will save us from Trumpism" stands on pretty shaky ground. Go out there and explain it all to Bernie Sanders, who might still think that a vote for Clinton will save us from Trumpism. Perhaps in the comments section you can all explode the thing from within? I will only be participating later, since I will soon be getting ready to go out to see Bernie Sanders. TTYL!