I'm not voting today. In fact, only 22 out of the 4,049 Democratic convention delegates are at stake in the ballots being cast 1-3 hours north of an unseasonably warm Cambridge. So in theory, when I do vote on February 5, none of the candidates will have locked up the nomination, which is refreshing. How much my vote will matter will depend in large part on the herd mentality of the American people. The fact that the judgments of the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire should be allowed to so drastically shape who the rest of us vote for is absurd. My loathing of the political press rises with every horse-race speculation on how X candidate is "finished" if they lose X primary. Still, before I along with everybody else get swept away in the self-fulfilling nonsense that will inevitably follow the results in NH, its good to think through the decision before me and fellow Democrats.
Al Gore, the most qualified person to be president in the nation and who would have without a doubt would have secured my support, did not run. The choice before me is between three major candidates, Clinton, Obama and Edwards that each have both significant positives and drawbacks.
For the most part, this is not a choice about ideology or policy. In contrast to the fierce battles between Democrats on economic policies in 1988 and 1992 and over foreign policy in 2004, the overlap between the 3 major Dems on policy matters is striking. You have to look very carefully to find any differences at all. The inclusion or exclusion of a mandate in a universal health care plan is trivial. Edwards' across-the-board opposition towards free trade agreements and Obama's willingness to put entitlement reform on the table are less so, but still minor. All three of the candidates have painted similar themes in foreign policy - soundly rejecting Bush's 1st term Jacksonian/neocon policies. All three are advised (or will likely be advised) by the architects of the pragmatic globalism of Clinton's 2nd term. Ferreting out actual differences between the candidates on these issues is exceedingly difficult.
Therefore, the choices between the three candidates come down to far more nebulous factors - their past experience, their political skills, and the best guess as to how they would fare in a general election. The decision is not an easy one.
The Case For Hillary Clinton
The strongest argument for Senator Clinton is that she has the firmest grasp on policy of any candidate in the race. This has been particularly evident from the debates. In last Saturday's debate for example, on a wide range of topics, Clinton repeatedly pointed out nuances glossed over by her opponents. In a question dealing with how to uproot Al Qaeda from Pakistan, Clinton brought up the complicating factor of the nuclear-fueled tensions between Pakistan and India. Similarly, in a discussion of energy policy, Clinton alone discussed cushioning the costs passed onto the poor from policies designed to increase energy efficiency.
The fact that Clinton is the best prepared to lead from day one is not simply a campaign slogan, its objectively true. While any Democratic administration will tap into the first Clinton Administration's foreign policy and national security team, for Senator Clinton that team is largely constructed already. They are the safest bet, the least likely to make a drastic error in the first year of a new administration. (Although keeping the Clinton foreign policy team together also puts a ceiling on what Clinton (II) would look like. There were plenty of failures with the first Clinton administration and its unclear to what extent any lessons were learned from those failures.)
Finally, there is the infamous Clinton political machine. The Clintons know how to fight, and they understand that politics is a contact sport. Unlike the disastrous, Shrum-led campaigns of Gore and Kerry, a Clinton campaign will not remain passive in the wake of right-wing Swift-boating. They not only respond to GOP attacks, but make sure to take the initiative as well.
Finally, I'd be remiss in noting that even though Hillary was launched onto the national stage in her role as First Lady, her election as president would be a tremendous milestone in moving this country towards gender equality.
The Case Against Hillary Clinton
Senator Clinton herself stated that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. To put it mildly, she is not a gifted political poet. Senator Clinton is not particularly adept at placing her policy agenda in the context of a clear political vision. Unlike her husband, she is not blessed with strong political instincts. Her political attacks, especially those that are made off-the-cuff, are clumsy and frequently backfire. The last debate was no exception. I don't think should could have made a worse attack on her opponents that criticizing them for "raising false hopes." She couldn't have played into the false narrative equating her as the candidate of cynicism any better.
I'm less comfortable with a related argument against nominating Clinton, which is that she faces a major handicap from the media. She faces the natural hostility to wonkery that Gore was subjected to in 2000. The political media is fundamentally disinclined to address the merits of substantive issues, so they consistently move the discussion from Clinton's home turf to highly subjective inquiries on "character." In Clinton's case, there is the added burden of the psycho-drama of her marriage and latent misogyny. She faces a ridiculous double-standard, accused of being "cold" where a man would be considered cool, accused of a "breakdown" where a man would be praised for fiery passion. As an argument against Clinton's candidacy I find this very disturbing, yet...the stakes could not be higher. I cannot afford to blithely ignore factors that will very much impact her prospects in a general election.
Finally, there is the bleak prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. In a deep way this is not healthy for American democracy. Certainly healthier than 4 more years of disastrous administration of the executive branch by the GOP, but a slide towards dynastic politics nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment