It's no secret that you won't find either myself or my compatriot on this blog to be fans of Hillary Clinton. I perhaps go even further in my dislike for all of the politicians in this election by stating there are only two of them that I can vote for - Barack Obama and John McCain. They are the only two politicians that are capable of breaking the cycle of oligarchy and a West Side Story-esque proxy war between the Bushes and the Clintons. Hillary's victory in yesterday's New Hampshire primary not only threatens to slide the Democratic primary system back into its bumpersticker, black-or-white partisanship of the last 20 years, but it also threatens to do the same on the Republican side and in the general election with the increasing likelihood she is the Democrat nominee.
What has been going on the last 20 years (1988 to 2008) has been an American version of the War of Roses between the Bushes (cultural conservatives) and Clintons (secular progressives). What started out as a Bush family jilted by the loss of George Sr. at the hands of a "philandering" scumbag (lack of quotes intention) and his "maniacal", power hungry wife (again, intentional) has blown up into a full out war. The undertone of the 2000 election wasn't just about sending George W in to clean up the White House, it was more about sending the son in to finish the father's work (much like in Iraq in 2003). Now that the supposedly dumb George W. is term limited (he did win two elections that should have been slam dunks for the Dems - how dumb could he be?), the Clintons are back on the scene to remind everyone how great the 90's were. The problem is that this isn't the 1990's.
In the 90's, Clinton was such a great president because he was smart enough to leave well enough alone. He let the economy expand on its own, and the few major reforms to government that he made - i.e. welfare reform - helped to put even more people to work and generate more wealth for the nation. Bill Clinton didn't have to do a whole lot, and the areas in which he really didn't do anything - as in terrorism - have been left for later leaders to clean up. Heck, there was even a time in the 90's when no one could do anything in government because it had shut down due to gridlock.
Fast forward to 2008, and things are very different. While we just now may be heading for our first recession since 2001, continued job losses in the middle of the country and continued pressure from competition abroad has led to a constant uneasiness about one's job. The dollar is at all time lows against foreign currencies, millions are still without health care, and employees are being asked to shoulder more of the costs that have traditionally been taken care of by their employers. All of these are not bad in-and-of themselves, but they do represent a changing world where the politics of yesteryear won't adequately address the challenges we face. We cannot afford a government where shutdown is a real possibility.
And here's where Hillary proves to be a problem. She is constantly reminding us of how much she (*cough*) and her husband did in the 1990's to help Americans. This is selective memory not just because of what I pointed out two paragraphs above, but also because after her HillaryCare debacle of 1993 she was unceremoniously shoved to the sidelines for the remainder of her husband's presidency. Saying that she is qualified to be president because she was married to one is like arguing a coach's wife is qualified in coaching his team in the state championship game. But it is also selective memory to forget how much bile, hatred, and disgust SHE, and not her husband, generated on the right. Whether we like it or not, this is not about her qualifications. It is about her partisanship, her divisiveness, and her inability to bring people together.
What we need going forward is someone who can jettison the boomer politics - pro-choice vs. pro-life, pro-gay vs. pro-marriage, pro-gun vs. pro-gun control, evangelical vs. secular progressive - that have gridlocked our country for 20+ years. Nothing would scuttle that goal faster than the Democratic Party getting nostalgic and selecting Hillary as their nominee. The GOP would do nothing less than nominate Huckabee or Romney to carry on the "holy fight" against the "godless" Clintons. God help us all if this becomes the choice in November 2008. We deserve better from both parties.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
While my co-blogger is certainly correct - I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton - I must respond to his analysis of the results from New Hampshire.
I would agree that Hillary Clinton is running a hardball campaign that we have seen over the last 12 years. But I would suggest that Barack Obama is running a campaign out of the Clinton playbook from 1992.
His message is that change to Washington is important, leadership experience is not (Bill Clinton had executive experience Obama does not). Obama advocates an idealistic view of government and creates the personal connections Bill Clinton did. This may worked in the 90's but in an era of global terrorism, and a hostile Iranian regime, can we really afford to vote an idealist into the White House just for the sake of a more congenial political environment?
Post a Comment