I’m With Her
Why Hillary Clinton is the safe, sober, and sane choice
The first in a series of three US presidential debates slated on Monday, Sept. 26, (Tuesday in Manila) promises to be a crucial point in what many commentators view as a historic American presidential election this November.
At this juncture of the campaign, national polls over the past few weeks have indicated a tightening race, with Democrat Hillary Clinton enjoying a very thin lead over Republican Donald Trump. The same observation applies to surveys in the more important swing states which ultimately decide who gets to move in the White House in January of 2017. This tightening in voter preferences happened after a post-convention spike that saw Clinton surging ahead of Trump by several percentage points. This led many to believe that a landslide was in the offing on November 8. However, by early September, her early August lead of eight points went down to only five points.
This election, the Americans cannot have a more contrasting pair of choices. This contradiction will be highlighted this week as the two meet for the first time on the debate stage of Hofstra University in New York. Moderated by NBC’s Lester Holt, this debate should show Americans which of these two candidates can lead America in a period marked by global security and terrorism problems, domestic malaise, social upheavals, and economic pains.
Bigoted forces are sweeping many countries around the world. These forces are threatening to undermine the liberal-economic values that have espoused openness and free trade, and lifted millions of people out of poverty. They want countries to retreat to their territories and close their borders. They capitalize on resentment and despair that have been boiling since the Great Recession of 2008 left many feeling betrayed by the current world order and its structures.
Between these two candidates, American voters have a clear option. They can elect a narcissistic demagogue who promises the moon and everything fantastic and great or an experienced, intelligent, and courageous politician who has devoted much of her life to public service.
Donald Trump has been described by the New York Times in its editorial endorsing the candidature of Clinton as “the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.” He is a businessman whose record is at best spotty and is marked by bankruptcies. He has never held a public office before and has not detailed his policies on immigration, security, economy, education, health, and foreign policy. (The only promise that he has put forward thus far is that he’s going to do something great and magnificent in these areas and to build a border wall to be paid for by Mexico.) His campaign is marked by vileness, insults, and dishonesty that commentators are now calling for moderators to be prepared to fact-check the statements and claims Trump will make during the debates.
Trump hasn’t shown any iota of evidence that he is temperamentally fit to become the commander-in-chief of the world’s strongest military. He is so thin-skinned that any excoriation is taken as a personal affront and is met with an aggressively demeaning counter on Twitter. He has shown admiration for strongmen and racists while alienating a large swath of American society such as women, children, and immigrants. The Los Angeles Times has called a possible Trump presidency “catastrophic” for their nation.
In contrast, Clinton exudes and shows the qualities needed to become the American president. She has the temperament, the experience, the intellect, and the courage to do what is needed and to meet the challenges at home and abroad. She has shown her ability to work even with members of the Republican Party to get the job done.
Clinton’s 40 years of public service has shown that she has been fighting for the welfare the weakest segments of American society especially women, children, and minorities. In the 1970s, she advocated for the Children’s Defense Fund. Although her initial attempts to reform healthcare failed in the ’90s, she supported the Children’s Health Insurance Program that provides protection to eight million low-income children. In a monumental speech in China in 1995, she proclaimed that “women’s rights are human rights.” She was also instrumental in convincing former President George W. Bush, a Republican, to pour in money to New York City in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. She also fought for health support and insurance for the emergency personnel who were exposed to dangerous air when they responded when the World Trade Center towers collapsed. All these things are in the public domain for all the world to see and scrutinize.
In foreign policy, she has played a major role in restoring American credibility abroad after eight years of reckless unilateralism of the Bush administration. She also helped in the establishment of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. As the first secretary of state of President Obama, she was one of the brains behind America’s pivot into Asia. One centerpiece of this refocusing is the Trans-Pacific Partnership that she helped formulate, although Clinton has announced her reversal on this pact because, according to her, it no longer met her standards. Even if many are ambivalent about the achievements of this pivot, this is a reflection of Clinton’s recognition of the important role Asia will play this century. The same observation can be made about the “reset” that she announced regarding America’s relationship with Russia in an effort to have new interactions with their Cold War rival.
Clinton is not perfect. She has had her share of missteps and mistakes which have been magnified because she has been in the limelight for a good part of her life.
She has been criticized for using a private e-mail server when she was Obama’s secretary of state, a decision that she said she regretted and apologized for. She was also recently panned for accepting donations for their foundation from foreign leaders and individuals, which could create conflict of interests. More damaging, she has been seen and portrayed by many as secretive and dishonest, a caricature that Jill Abramson, former executive editor of the New York Times, has disputed and blamed on Clinton’s penchant to withhold. However, compared with what Clinton can bring to the Resolute Desk, these issues seem trivial and minor at best.
Clinton does not command the awe that people see in Barack Obama. She does not share the oratorical power and flight Obama demonstrates when he speaks. She also does not possess the charisma that her husband Bill has used to captivate audiences when he talks.
However, with the challenges that America and the world face, American voters should choose the one who brings the best qualities and qualifications to meet and address these problems. Their choice cannot be clearer.
