The Morality of Hillary Clinton
Throughout the entirety of the 2016 presidential election, there has been one issue stuck in the minds of Americans: ethics, specifically, the mores of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The issue of Clinton’s ethics and morals is a major topic that has swayed the opinions of many voters — at times it has also been the deciding factor over who will or won’t lend their support in the voting both. A recent audio poll of students in Westchester, NY, speaks to this.
Both Clinton’s supporters and detractors have questioned her morality, citing the Clinton Foundation, her relationship with both her husband and the public, and her use of a personal email during her service as Secretary of State.
There has been continuous speculation as to whether any laws were broken by Clinton, the Foundation, or anyone working for her in the Foundation. Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer for former President George W. Bush, has said that the Clinton Foundation exhibited some sort of favoritism within the campaign pertaining to donors, agents, and workers, but technically, no federal laws have actually been broken. But to many voters, the question is: have moral laws been broken? While specific ethical laws have been created by the federal government, morals are independent of the law. Morals are subjective and differ from person to person. This has caused controversy and has helped the topic stay alive throughout Clinton’s campaign for the presidency. The questionable tactics that both the Clinton Foundation and campaign have appeared to use during this election season have raised questions about motivations.
The same donors donate to both the Foundation and the campaign, so if Clinton is to win the presidential election this November, the motives of every single donor, and even Clinton herself, could be called into question during her time in office. Her entire presidency could be seen as a quid pro quo situation. Quid pro quo is basically a favor system — if I do something for you, I expect something in return. People may think that since the same donors donate to both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton campaign, that as President, Clinton will be inclined to promote legislation that could favor her donors. This could easily corrupt politics, and in some cases, already has, which is why many Americans see it as a threat to democracy and even more reason to question the integrity of Hillary Clinton.
When asked about the morals and ethics of Hillary Clinton during her campaign, Austin Graham and Spencer Stendig of Westchester County described her to be “crooked”, while Hayley Weisstuch, another Westchester resident, characterized Clinton’s morals as “poised” and “what they need to be for the situation.” This shows the severe differences in support that Clinton’s questionable integrity has caused.
Her relationship with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, has been a sore spot in Hillary’s campaign and has been subject to extreme criticism from the media since they came into the political spotlight. From scandal to squabble, the Clinton marriage has been anything but a fairy tale; the harder they try to seem more like the “perfect couple,” the less the public sees them as one. Many Americans see Bill as immoral for his actions while in office and question both of the Clintons’ ethics based on their reactions to the 1995 Monica Lewinsky scandal. Bill used Lewinsky as a “scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.” He blamed the affair on her — a young girl — and not only neglected to accept full responsibilities for his actions, but also denied accusations of sexual misconduct from several other women during his tenure as President, and throughout his career as a whole.
Hillary, on the other hand, handled the Monica Lewinsky scandal differently. She tried to avoid the public and the media, but as she was the First Lady of the United States, this was almost impossible. While internally, Clinton was “dumbfounded, heartbroken, and outraged,” she put on a happy face for the public. To the American people, Hillary Clinton did not seem to be suffering from the news of her husband’s affair, which led to an automatic distrust of her within the general public. This reaction is one of the root origins of Hillary’s public perception as a dishonest and non-genuine person, thus being immoral.
Despite Clinton being officially cleared by the FBI regarding the use of her personal email server, she was still under investigation until just forty-eight hours before Election Day, which very much calls her morals into question. As Secretary of State, Clinton was required by law to use only her official government email account. She secretly neglected to follow this rule and sent and received up to 62,000 emails using her unsecured, personal server. The act of using a personal server, and not even setting up a “state.gov” email account only increased the American public’s distrust of Clinton, but this only came to attention in March 2015 when the New York Times ran a front-page article revealing Clinton’s actions. The article brought her “alarming” choices to discussion and stated that the personal server “may have violated federal requirements,” which is particularly troubling for someone so high up in the United States government.
According to Clinton, she made the choice to use her personal account for “convenience” because she did not want to struggle through switching between multiple devices for correspondence. Not only did Clinton use a private server, but when she was subpoenaed by the FBI, she deleted up to 33,000 emails, which only caused more controversy within her campaign. Unfortunately for Clinton, her choice backfired because the uncovering of her personal server and her deletion of thousands of emails led to a long and strenuous investigation that not only tired the American public, but also led to a distrust in the Clinton campaign and reinforced the belief that she is corrupt.
Hillary Clinton has been described as a “career-politician” by Tina Pantginis of Westchester, NY. Pantginis’ way of defining Clinton’s morals is probably the cleanest response to the question;Because Clinton’s actions have not been explicitly black and white. Given the circumstances, Clinton has been as moral as she can — regardless of the support that she may or may not have.
