How bad is Hillary Clinton, really?
I don’t mean this as a rhetorical question. Rather, what I’m interested in is placing Clinton in the continuity of recent Democratic politicians.
Before we get started, let’s stipulate a couple things.
(1) Yes, I’m a RINO squish. (Because I don’t like the guy who doesn’t care about abortion, thinks free trade is a scam, promises to never touch the welfare state, is ambivalent about the Second Amendment, and wants to actively dismantle the First.)
(2) That said, I don’t much care for Hillary Clinton. Her politics are not my politics. Her conduct as Secretary of State was unwise, frequently dishonest, and possibly criminal. Her behavior in the private sector was, at the least, unseemly and avaricious. The best that can be said for Clinton is that she is a Nixonian figure.
But ask yourself this: Let’s pretend for a moment that America has to have a Democratic president and that this president will be one of the figures to have won the Democratic party nomination over the last 40 years. In that context, where does Clinton rank?
Do you believe Clinton would be a worse president that Obama has been? I don’t. Clinton is venal and pliable and eager to follow paths of political opportunism, which suggests that she never would have pushed through unpopular measures such as Obamacare or mass amnesty. Further, whatever her faults in the realm of foreign policy, there is nothing in her history to suggest that she is in favor of the decline of American influence abroad, as Obama clearly is. This isn’t even a close call.
How about John Kerry? Again, I’d prefer Clinton. She lies habitually, but at least her ambition has never led her to impugn the honor of American soldiers. Also, she’s a good deal tougher than Secretary Windsurfer.
Al Gore? I’ll take Clinton again. Gore was once a serious man; after the 2000 election his entire life spun out of control and he became a crazy person.
Dukakis? Mondale? Clinton has liberal political leanings, but she’s too much of an opportunist to be a genuine ideologue. I’d much rather have Clinton than either of them. And Jimmy Carter? He was only the most disastrous (and insufferable) president of the twentieth century. I’d take Clinton, again.
In fact, the only Democratic nominee who makes it an argument is her husband. And the truth is, if Bill Clinton hadn’t defiled his office, broken the impeachment process, and lowered the bar so that his successors could safely break laws with impunity, then he’d have been a pretty decent president.
Again, his politics are not my politics–I’m simply saying that from the opposition standpoint, it would be hard to ask for more from a Democratic president. And I think you might be able to say the same about Hillary Clinton.
None of this is to say that conservatives should like Hillary Clinton, or vote for her. But only that you can oppose her candidacy without needing to believe that she represents something new and terrible. Because she does not.
On the contrary: By the standards of Democratic party pols, Hillary Clinton might be the best you can hope for.
