Here’s Why Hillary’s Foreign Policy is Not a Good Reason to Vote Third Party

Note: this post assumes you are left leaning in the American political spectrum. See this post on Medium, here.

Interventionalist, war-monger, regime-changer…I’ve heard a lot of terms to describe Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy. I’m in international development, and I understand from my own work and experience how destructive and destabilizing war is on a country for not just the present generation, but for many generations to come. I get the frustration and anger that comes with Hillary’s decisions, and I agree that her foreign policy has been contentious and often times dangerous.

Some Presidents (especially George W. Bush) have been absolute disasters in their foreign policy. Some nominees (especially Donald Trump) would be devastating in their foreign policy. The more pervasive problem is that EVERY president since I have been alive (and probably much further back) has made dangerous foreign policy decisions, no matter how progressive or conservative they were on the campaign trail. If we truly want to see a reform in our foreign policy, at minimum, we need to:

1.     Address the power the military has in our political process.

2.     Address why the media and the American public don’t understand that war does not equate all of foreign policy. As an example, look at how idiotic so much of the response was to the Iranian economic sanction lift.

3.     Figure out how to de-monetize/not derive profits from war.

No matter how great Jill Stein’s or Gary Johnson’s rhetoric is now, I guarantee you even if either were to miraculously win the Presidency, American foreign policy would not dramatically change in the three ways described above. These kinds of changes take massive amounts of studying, organizing, fundraising/lobbying, relationship building and perhaps even economic restructuring. It won’t happen in one election and, as Dan Savage recently mentioned, it won’t happen through the piecewise, sporadic approach third parties take.

Meanwhile, the threat Trump/Pence place on people like me – LGBTQI people, women, POCs, people with disabilities – is enormous. I quit a job with the UN in sub-Saharan Africa precisely to avoid persecution and dangerous conditions explicitly due to who I am. After years of work on economic development and human rights, I can confidently say the domestic human rights, inclusion, willingness to listen to constituents and openness of Hillary’s policy are some of the few and major things that are going correctly in this difficult world.

Casting a vote for a third party candidate will not rewrite the course of American foreign policy, military intervention and the American public’s opinion of both. Casting a vote for a third party candidate will not change the course of foreign policy. Casting a third party vote might, however, help elect as President an authoritarian demagogue with the temperament of a toddler who is willing to exploit and abuse those of us who are already most vulnerable here in the States. If anyone voting for a third party candidate uses foreign policy/war as a justification, at least be decent and acknowledge the complicated reality of the situation. At least acknowledge you are willing to subvert the human rights of people in the States for your principles, because like it or not, that is what you are saying.

Brexit - Initial Thoughts

Find this on Medium, here.

I’ve already had a few friends reach out and ask what exactly Brexit means in practical terms. The answer, of course, is very complicated. I’m going to try to write out longer posts in coming days, but here are a few things to pay attention to in the news about why this is such a big and catastrophic deal:

1. Most obviously, the international markets are going to go crazy. Already, the pound has devalued to its lowest point since 1985. The currency has not been valued so low since the USSR existed. International trade deals, including bi-lateral agreements between the UK and individual EU countries will now have to be rewritten/renegotiated. Immigration policies — including employment eligibility — will also change. According to the Lisbon Treaty, there is a two-year deadline for all of this to happen.
2. Xenophobia and parallels to the US election — much of the Leave/Brexit movement was based on illogical arguments that are equivalent to Trump building his financially, politically and legally impossible wall on the US-Mexico border. The nationalistic and xenophobic rhetoric that fueled the Brexit movement is impossible to ignore as irrelevant or tangential. In fact, it was center in much of the vote. Trump/Trump-like figures (including Boris Johnson, who was the figure for the Leave movement) will undoubtedly see validation for their incoherent, racially motivated “policies” that will hurt everyone, including and even especially the very people who vote in favor for such measures.
3. Exit of other countries in the EU — Sweden has already indicated it will consider holding a vote to leave the EU following the passing of Brexit, as the UK is its closest EU trading partner and it still uses the kroner. The EU is the world’s second most powerful trading and economic bloc, and these hits could destroy the EU, which will have untold impact on the global economy. The debt financing and number of refugees the rest of the EU countries will have to take on as a result of the UK exit will also massively shift, perhaps to a breaking point.
4. International aid and the UN — DFID, the UK government’s aid agency is one of the largest in the world. With the chaos of the UK EU exit, the fund is likely to shrink (maybe even significantly). The UN and its legitimacy will also take a hit as nationalistic sentiment grows. A global rise in nationalism and isolationist policies is exactly when institutions like the UN are most important, even if the institutions need major reforms.
5. Future of the UK — In terms of GDP, the UK is the fifth biggest economy in the world.* As Scotland and Northern Ireland have voted to stay in the EU, it is very possible both will hold separate referendums to vote on independence. If secession votes pass, the composition of the UK itself will fundamentally shift.
6. Disconnect between the “elite/establishment” and the “commoners” — Brexit is a clear indication that a large portion of the UK’s population is angry at the “elite/establishment” control over their lives. Many believe globalization has not worked in their favor, and that the “elite/establishment” is unequipped to work towards more equality, social safety nets and inclusion. If the “elite/establishment” of the UK cannot work with the “commoners” to close these gaps, more drastic moves like Brexit will come, which will ultimately work in no one’s favor. This strongly parallels what is currently happening in the States.

*Update, 14h32 EDT, 24 June 2016 — France has technically taken over the UK has the fifth biggest global economy following the rapid devaluation of the British pound.

The Reductive Effect of Homogeneity

Find this on Medium

------

 

A few weeks ago, I was sitting with a friend at a diner in the West Village. He recently finished his Masters from the same graduate program as me in New York City. Since we are both looking for a job, we immediately began talking about the headache involved in the process.

In our profession of technology for international development (ICT4D), we are at a convergence of two fields – one that is increasingly driven by local, diverse solutions (international development) and one that, at least in North America and Europe, has generally become more white and more male (technology). In the United States, women make up a smaller percentage of coders now than they did in the 1980s.

The subject of race and sex/gender in the tech workforce is a testy subject. With every article I write on diversity in tech, I get a backlash of the usual tired comments:

“Stop complaining, work harder.”

“Don’t make excuses for not being qualified.”

“Who the f**k cares if there are no women in tech?”

The arguments in return should be obvious – it’s not a mere coincidence the industry is dominated by white men. Not including, designing or accounting for more than half the population (i.e. women) in any industry is a horrible strategic business decision.

The cause of such visceral reactions to my articles comes down to less refined reason – white men think I am writing them off. As my friend at the diner – a white male – said during our conversation, it really sucks to be reduced to one’s race and sex instead of one’s accomplishments. That, I know. I am an Indian-American woman, and so the reductive nature of everything I have achieved is an everyday reality. Undoubtedly, my black athlete, Indian software developer, and East Asian friends in finance understand being reduced to common racial tropes. They’re harmful and frustrating.

Here’s the ironic thing about homogeneous tech workforces – I can’t help but see them as a trope. The masterfully satirical Tumblr blog, All Male Panel, captures the sentiment of this idea perfectly. In a world in which there are brilliant and qualified people of all sexes, genders, races, ages, religions, ethnicities and nationalities, how do so many companies and organizations continue to have such homogenous groups of employees, founders and executives? Any bystander could conclude it must be the product of a rigged system.

In that rigged system, the individuals and their accomplishments are diminished. There’s even an Etsy store for the cliché, saying, “Carry yourself with the confidence of a mediocre white man.” When I, and I’m guessing so many others, see a workplace overwhelmingly made up of white men, I can’t help but think the individual employees got to where they are because of their race and sex. It’s a similar effect to always attributing a black or Latino person’s admission into an Ivy League school to affirmative action.

A product of being privileged to live in New York City and work around the world is exposure to talent of all walks of life. Unfairly reducing a person and their accomplishments is damaging. I don’t want to look at anyone – white males included – and think about only their race and sex. One of my favorite teachers, the person who first encouraged me to write, was a white guy. Had I discounted any of my life mentors and advocates based on race or sex, I would have done myself a lot of harm.

Alas, the ratio of white males to everyone else in the tech industry is impossible to ignore. If those of us outside the favored majority know the system is rigged, we know those in the system may not actually be competitive compared to the entire population. We can’t help but see mediocrity of the favored win over exceptional of the unfavored. We associate homogeneity with mediocrity and, therefore, mediocrity with the homogeneous. That is the reductive effect of homogeneity.

White men, if you don’t want to be reduced to your race and sex, fight for diversity.