Why is Hillary Clinton so often wrong?
Hillary Clinton is quite often on the wrong side of progressive issues. From discussions with self-described progressives, there appear to be four views of why this is. Before we discuss these, let’s review a few times when Clinton has opposed the progressive position. To reduce confusion, the Vines (short video clips) present Clinton in her own words.
Hillary Clinton wants to deport refugee kids
In a 2014 interview with Christiane Amanpour, Clinton called for the deportation of Central American children who have fled violence in their home country. She acknowledged that the violence was on the rise, and called for an US-backed escalation in police activity in those countries. In her view, while “violence in certain of those Central American countries is increasing dramatically,” the children trying to escape “should be sent back.”
She wants to send a message to parents who have made the wrenching decision to send their child away: “Just because your child makes it across the border doesn’t mean your child gets to stay.”
Hillary Clinton called child offenders ‘super-predators’
In the 1990s Hillary Clinton referred to child offenders as “super predators”. A predator is a wild carnivorous animal. She said “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators,’ no conscience, no empathy, and they must be brought to heel.”
Hillary Clinton fought to expand the police state
Around the same time she was characterizing other peoples’ children as ‘super-predators’, Clinton pushed for a vast expansion of police forces and prisons. This policy resulted in the incarceration of millions of citizens, disproportionately black and Latino. In this Vine, she argues for a “more police on the street, [and] more prison construction money.”
Hillary Clinton worked with prison lobbyists
In the decades since, Clinton has accepted donations from the for-profit prison industry that she helped to create and had prison lobbyists working for her 2016 presidential campaign as late as October 2015. This is the same industry that was implicated in buying children from a crooked judge. Thankfully, a journalist reported on this scandal and Black Lives Matter activists got Clinton to stop taking prison profits.
Hillary Clinton ran a racist presidential campaign in 2008
In her 2008 primary race against Barack Obama, Clinton ran a remarkably racist campaign. She equated “hard-working” Americans with “white” Americans in a radio interview. She produced a little horror movie of a TV ad in which she imagined white children being endangered by Obama’s presidency. The clip below captures the tone of her campaign: “Shame on you, Barack Obama.” Can you imagine Clinton addressing a white Senator in this way? I can’t.
As 2008 wore on and her chances to win the nomination grew slimmer, Clinton invoked assassination as one possible way that she might still win the nomination.
Hillary Clinton pushed to invade Iraq
While many could see Cheney and Rumsfeld lying from a mile away, Clinton appears to have believed them. She supported the war in Iraq and voted for it. In this clip she pushes Bush and Cheney’s lie that “Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his biological and chemical weapons stock.”
Hillary Clinton opposed marriage equality for 20 years
Kim Davis is famous for opposing marriage equality based on her religious beliefs. For ~20 years leading up to 2013, Clinton publicly opposed gay marriage rights on the basis that heterosexual marriage was a ‘sacred bond.’ She supported the Defense of Marriage Act which banned states from extending marriage rights to LGBT couples. In this Vine, she says that she believes that “marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”
Hillary Clinton is a close ally of Wall Street
Of Clinton’s top five political campaign donors, four are Wall Street banks. A large proportion of her estimated $30M net worth comes from speaking fees to corporations, including banks, which most recently run as high as $275,000 for a one hour speech.
In the second 2o15 primary debate, she claimed that she went to Wall Street in 2007 and told them to ‘cut it out’ with the massive fraud they were committing. However, the speech itself reveals that she spread the blame around, pointing the finger at home buyers, the victims of the banks’ fraud. In this Vine she says “Who’s exactly to blame for the housing crisis? Home buyers… should have known they were getting over their heads”
Why?
The above examples are just a few cases in which Clinton has opposed the progressive position. I haven’t discussed the death penalty, the $15 living wage, single payer healthcare, marijuana legalization, bankruptcy restriction, welfare cuts, domestic spying, or border fences to name a few more issues where Clinton is in disagreement with her base. Her long fight against many progressive positions begs the question: why? Within Democratic Party supporters, there are four main perspectives about the answer to this question.
The Evolutionists. Some think that her heart is in the right place, but that she is just slow to come around to adopting the correct policy. They say it takes a long time for her to ‘evolve’ to the point where she realizes the error of her previous beliefs and eventually aligns herself with the correct policies. The slowness is not accounted for by lack of intellect, as none of the four groups doubt her high intelligence.
The Pragmatic Believers. This group strongly believes that her top priority is to help people, but that she takes the pragmatic view that progressive policies are almost impossible to sell to the American people without enormous amounts of campaign money. In their view, Clinton must seek donations from large corporations and banks so that she can compete with the Republicans.
The Cynics. This group believes that Clinton is motivated by money and power. They point to Clinton’s high net worth, elite lifestyle, careerism and the hundreds of millions of dollars in international money that flow through the Clinton Foundation and Global Initiative. They think that she only pushes for left wing causes inasmuch as it covers her main project: self-enrichment. Otherwise, they view her as an apolitical businesswoman who acts mainly based on poll data.
The Unmaskers. This group points to Clinton’s upbringing as a Republican and her early political work for racist presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. They believe she is a political person, and that her true political sympathies lie with the Republican party - at least the Republican party of her father’s era.
The true answer to why she often opposes progressive policies is probably somewhere between these four perspectives. However, the real question is: Why would any progressive consider supporting a candidate where this is even a question?
If you made it this far and enjoyed the piece, please click the little heart below :)
