EDITORIAL – Is Hillary going to run?—that’s the $64,000 dollar question. As the 2016 presidential race begins to take shape—albeit, even before the final midterms of the Obama presidency—it’s time to take a look at the Democratic frontrunner: Hillary. No, she hasn’t officially declared to run yet, nor has she made the never failing, “coincidental” trip to Iowa and New Hampshire, the nation’s first presidential primary states. Nevertheless, Hillary has created momentous talk among both liberals and conservatives on her possible candidacy.
In fact, I’ve yet to cite Hillary’s full name, though I doubt that anyone is confused as to whom I’m referring to. That’s the kind of instant name recognition Hillary Rodham Clinton brings to the 2016 race. For Clinton, the accolades go on and on, First Lady—the wife of a former president, Senator from her adopted state of New York, and President Obama’s first Secretary of State. Her resume is well groomed and no other political figure in the country has the kind of household familiarity Clinton brings to the table; the notable exception being, former and current presidents.
But to address the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room, Hillary Clinton should not be president. In fact, a President Hillary should be the sum of all fears for anyone who values the prospect of a new chief executive bringing with them momentous change to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Why then, should Clinton not become president? She’s qualified, she’s tough, she’s knows her way around the White House, what’s the deal?
Clinton represents the status quo par excellence. Ever since her humble days as an idealistic law student at Yale, she has been inbred to embody the very quintessence of the American establishment. Even more, she admitted publically to a crowd at the annual meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association that she has not driven a car since 1996. Think for a moment at the vehicle you were driving in the late-90s—she hasn’t sat behind the wheel since then, thanks to taxpayer dollars and the U.S. Secret Service.
America is a nation founded upon a repudiation of any notion of monarchy. American’s stomachs curdle at the notion of a divine right to govern or hereditary inheritance of positions of power. Since the early-1990s the same political families continue to run for the presidency—principally, the Bushes and Clintons. With former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush considering a possible run for the presidency, his mother and former First Lady Barbara Bush noted that her son’s candidacy would not be good for American democracy. Bush posited that, “If we can’t find more than two or three families to run for higher office, that’s silly…because there are great governors and great eligible people to run.”
That’s the issue—dynastic presidential families. Since 1988, we’ve had Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and now possibly: Clinton II or Bush III. Do Americans really want another Clinton or Bush in the Oval Office?
Clinton also garners, a frankly, limited record of actual achievement in her two decades of public service. In Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt expounds on Hillary’s lack of achievement as Secretary of State. Walt surmises that while Secretary Clinton was very busy, she lacked a notable capstone achievement during her tenure.
The most consequential decision she made during her service in the U.S. Senate was to vote for military action in Iraq. Progressives beware, Clinton succumbed to the post-9/11 neoconservative hysteria and voted in favor of America’s longest war; an entanglement which still persists, to a limited extent, today. What’s to say that she won’t balk again? Who’s to think she won’t continue the Bush-Obama condominium of expensive, massive, and protracted conflict in search of terrorist cells worldwide? To hardline militarist war hawks in both party camps, Hillary is your gal for 2016.
Other observers have noted that a Clinton candidacy resembles the way in which Democrats often decry the GOP’s presidential nomination process: the next in line gets on the ticket. The recent trend in the media of reevaluating a Hillary candidacy has cost her; Clinton’s polling numbers are the worst they’ve been in six years, with 45 percent of respondents viewing her unfavorably.
What’s more is that Hillary Clinton feels more comfortable on Wall Street than Main Street. In fact, in her 2008 bid for the White House, Clinton’s fundraising was rooted in big bankers on Wall Street—not by contributions from everyday people deep in the American heartland. Make no mistake, Clinton has been ambivalent on Wall Street excess and reform for a reason. Executives from JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and the like will be lining up to fervently support and donate to a possible Hillary candidacy.
More possible presidential contenders have been resisting the notion of a Hillary candidacy. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has claimed that a President Hillary would be worse for civil liberties against a growing surveillance state than Presidents Bush and Obama. Admittedly, Paul said this while giving a speech—in all places—New Hampshire and is likely worried of a possible Clinton candidacy as much as any potential Democratic nominee. Nevertheless, Sen. Paul may be onto something.
Hillary Clinton is not her husband. Since Bill left the Oval Office in 2001, the Clinton’s have moved to New York, became even wealthier, and have adapted to a comfortable establishment lifestyle; a far cry from Bill’s humble upbringing in 1950s rural Arkansas. If both conservatives and progressives want change following the polarizing Bush and Obama administrations in first two decades of this century, it cannot be found in Hillary. If you want more of the same—Clinton is undeniably your top choice.
At this point in the race, it’s too early to be backing any particular candidate. Nonetheless, if you seek change in ’16, I have a few suggestions. For progressives, although he has not even flirted with the possibility of running, former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold would be a great selection—even many conservatives agree. He’s a maverick, not afraid to buck his party; a liberal lion; the only U.S. Senator to oppose the Patriot Act; and he hasn’t been marred in scandal or conspiratorial rhetoric. Conversely, in the GOP, I’d like to see former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman throw his hat in the mix for a possible presidential bid. Huntsman garners a laudable record in industry; is a moderate Republican, not afraid to be the voice of reason in a highly polarized party; and has a credible track record as governor of Utah.
With Hillary Clinton recently launching a new, ambiguous website, HillaryClinton.com, it seems more than likely we’ll see a Clinton candidacy in 2016. I sympathize with many progressives who salivate at the opportunity to have the first female in the Oval Office, but not this woman—not when American needs assertive and forceful leadership more than ever. Yes, Hillary is a woman, but Hillary also represents an establishment, dynastic elite minority which would seek to further the interests of the moneyed at the expense of all of us out here in the “real world.” Truly, a Clinton candidacy scares me; it should do the same for anyone which wants our nation’s deep woes resolved sometime in the next decade.
