An argument for Clinton
People ask me what I see in Clinton. This is to answer them.
Effective
On October 29th, 2012, news organizations reported the end to a multi-year lull in the Israel-Gaza conflict, as Hamas (the ‘government’ of Gaza) started firing rockets across the border. This escalated as Israel flew airstrikes over the following weeks. Then Hillary Clinton arrived in Israel on the 19th of November. On November 20th, Clinton met with Netanyahu. On November 21st, Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire. She got no credit for it, but the ceasefire held.
Openly, a very minor carrot was on the table for Gazan civilians, and that was the only condition. Knowing the history of international politics, there was probably something else that happened, but we don’t know what. That ceasefire held for two years.
That episode typifies my view of Clinton: she gets no credit, her accomplishments aren’t talked about because they’re quiet, but damn is she effective.
Pragmatic, quick learner
Health care
As first lady, a position with no political power, she took on a very ambitious project: health care reform. Her husband’s supposedly centrist administration backed her plan, which, as a single payer plan, was significantly to the left of Obama.
It ran into an iron wall of opposition from a variety of corporate-backed quarters, and fell apart.
Fast forward to 2016. Sanders attacks Clinton from the left for refusing to call for a single-payer health care plan. Clinton doesn’t take the bait, knowing as she must that in 2016, without even the conservative Democratic congressional majority that Clinton started his term with, single-payer is never going to happen anyway.
But with the primary pressures waning, Clinton releases a subtle proposal that gets almost no press: Allowing people in their 50s or older to ‘buy in’ to medicare, paying its full cost to be covered through it. Essentially, she’s proposing that private, for profit insurers will have to compete for customers against non-profit medicare. If they don’t, they’ll lose market share, and pretty soon most people in their 50s will be talking about how much cheaper medicare is. And then she or a future progressive can suggest that people in their 40s also be allowed to buy in… and so gradually the country becomes accustomed to exactly the sort of single-payer plan that she pushed for years ago. The best part? The proposal is revenue neutral, by virtue of the customers paying medicare’s full cost. The even better part? If Conservatives are right about the government producing inferior services in this instance, people just won’t buy in and none of that transition will happen. She’s even got the “but if I’m wrong about this” contingency covered.
Principled, or not? Hard to tell. Not sure what I think of this…
Here’s an interview with Elizabeth Warren in which now-Senator Warrren both praises Clinton and expresses disappointment. It’s worth watching in full.
In short, Hillary is smart (“I never had a smarter student.”) and principled. But in the senate, she voted for a bill she had previously opposed, which passed 83–15 but never became law. An article from the day it was passed made it clear that it was already known that it wasn’t about to become law.
Does this mean that Hillary voted for it knowing it wasn’t going to become law but that voting that way would increase her donations? Or that she wanted the donation regardless of whether it passed? Well, she didn’t vote for the 2005 version that finally got through. And she’s expressed regret for her 2001 vote.
I’d accept that this vote puts some doubt on whether she’s principled, but not that it proves she isn’t.
Minimum wage
A $15/hour minimum wage sounds like a great idea to a lot of liberal Democrats, because we largely live in cities. But practically, there are places (read: rural Alabama) in the United States where $15/hour is absolutely ridiculous, because its purchasing power is vastly more. I pay $1060/month in rent in Providence for a lovely apartment. A quick google search found me a townhouse for rent in Mississippi, with 75% more square footage, for only $550. Mississippi shouldn’t adopt a $15 minimum wage any more than Providence should adopt a $30/hour minimum wage. When Clinton refuses to endorse a national “fight for 15", she does so because common sense should trump ideology. Bravo to her. It’s that sort of non-ideological support of common sense that I admire in her. In contrast to what everyone seems to think, she does not tell everyone what they want to hear all the time.
Team player
In 2008, when Obama beat her in the primary, she not only swallowed her sour grapes but actively sought to bring her supporters in, loudly signaling her endorsement by taking an active part in the staging of Obama’s official victory over her. She knows when and how it is appropriate to promote others.
And the people who know her, know her value. If you look at superdelegates, the closer they are to the Senate, where Clinton served and Sanders still serves, the more likely they are to support Clinton. Take Leahy, Sander’s fellow senator from Vermont. He endorsed Clinton and stuck to it, despite Sanders’ 87–13 win over Clinton in Vermont. McConnell endorsed fellow Kentuckian Rand Paul, though they differ hugely on issues. To take a public stand like that against your own voters takes principles, and Leahy’s principles lead him to support Clinton.
Secretary of State
Myanmar
Her record as secretary of state is phenomenal. First, with repeated trips to Myanmar, she helped push that country along the path of reform, from brutal dictatorship to semi-Democracy, with none of the messy coups and countercoups of say, Egypt so far. Southeast Asia’s own female Nelson Mandela is now basically prime minister in all but name. And what’s great is that all this reform happened without riots in the streets. Clinton helped incentivize this reform by removing US sanctions rapidly as they showed improvement. Politicians get criticized all the time for taking sanctions off too quickly or too slowly. No one has a word of criticism for Clinton on Myanmar, because Myanmar continues to show signs of rapid improvement in political liberalization.
Libya
In 1983, about 250 American soldiers died in terrorist attack on a marine barracks in Lebanon. Ronald Reagan was president. The Democratic congress accepted that it was a tragedy. No one criticized his secretary of state or secretary of defense. It was just accepted as a tragedy. Iranian proxies were implicated, and Reagan did nothing, except withdraw from Lebanon a few years later.
In contrast, the moment the attack in Benghazi killed 4 Americans, the right wing pointed all fingers at Clinton and made up all sorts of insinuations about what she coulda shoulda woulda done if she were good at her job. All politically motivated, because it was already considered reasonably likely that she might run for president a few years later. House majority leader McCarthy (R) admitted as much.
Now how about the Libyan involvement in the first place? You hear criticisms these days that the US should not have gotten involved in Libya. When we got involved, a UN resolution had just been passed suggesting that action be taken, and there was a very real possibility that Khaddafi would kill millions of Libyans in order to put down the revolution. And the intervention was led by England and France more than by the USA. Critiquing Hillary specifically for everything that’s happened there since would be unfair. Even Russia and China voted for intervention, and they generally vote against intervention in foreign countries.
Israel
I opened this whole piece with an example of her good work in that field. Enough said.
Opposition claims:
Has no morals beyond power
That’s just false. Clinton has been clear about a number of goals that she has consistently pushed throughout her career: Women’s rights (and generally personal liberty) abroad (see also her speech in China, & work as Sectry. of St.) and health care.
Legal experts have all opined that Clinton did nothing illegal. There is no evidence that any harm was done or that any confidential information was exposed to hackers or foreign governments that should not have gained access.
Corruption
The Republicans have hated her since 1993, and have spent decades tarring her image and investigating her every excuse they can. Whitewater. Foundation. Benghazi. Server. All these years and they’ve found nothing. Hillary Clinton: constantly under investigation, guilty of absolutely nothing. If she was corrupt, she’d be in jail by now. Numerous Bush politicians got in jailed for actions during Bush’s presidency. Libby. DeLay. Hastert None of them were investigated with half the zeal or focus that has dogged the Clintons for decades.
Democrat
She also stands for all those things the Democratic party has stood for for fifty years: Civil rights for all. A woman’s right to choose. A social safety net.
Experienced
She’s the most well qualified candidate since James Madison.
The woman card
Yes, Clinton’s a woman. In my book, that’s a plus. The more women are around, the more civil the conversation becomes. I know this from years of observing people, both in my classroom and beyond it. Clearly we don’t have enough women in politics. They tend to be more reasonable and better listeners. (Since they’re basically forced to be by men?) Better at compromise and consensus building. And more likely to respect minorities, since they’re treated like minorities even though they outnumber men in this country. Has anyone noticed that we talk about “women’s issues” like they’re a special interest rather than the majority? No one talks about ads that specifically target men. Because men, apparently, aren’t a special interest. Oh, no, they’re the normal interest. Gah!
