By Imre Bártfai So, Hillary R. Clinton will run for presidential office. Surprised we are not, Yoda would say. However, this ...
By Imre Bártfai
So, Hillary R. Clinton will run for presidential office. Surprised we are not, Yoda would say.
However, this challenge –no matter how boringly it started- will yet surely
bring lots of excitement for everyone, not to speak about obvious long run
consequences in global politics.
Hillary may be the strongest candidate if we look at her Democratic
supporter base, her high visibility and possible found-raising capability.[1] It
is unlikely that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders could defeat her in the
race for popularity and funds[2],
although many hard-core Democrats would rather see one of these, more populist,
more leftist senators running for presidency. True, Hillary does not seem to
possess the charisma of Obama or the progressive zeal of either Sanders or
Warren. She has powers of her own though: stability, strong character,
endurance, and popularity both as herself and as a Clinton. (Dynasty they might
be or not, belonging to such an illustrious family enhances one’s visibility in
politics.)
Let us not forget: Hillary survived her husband’s Lewinsky-affair, or
rather, its aftermath. And the marriage survived as well, which might not be
the best from personal point of view, but suits politics definitely. (Recently
there weren't much unmarried American presidents.) She cooperated effectively with
Obama, even though he defeated her in the Democratic preliminary, and their
relationship started as rather cold. She is not only a good team player, but
achieved scores in a single play as well.
A certain progressive zeal also cannot be denied from a person who
organized Bill Clinton’s failed but ambitious healthcare reform in 1993.
Hillary might otherwise be not a hardcore social reformer, lacking the
anti-Wall Street rhetoric of Warren, or the strong populist progressiveness of
Sanders, which reminds me of the often forgotten progressive tradition of
American politics. An attempt by her to switch to progressive, and populist
talk sounded a bit forced, and backfired. [3]
Hillary is rather a member of ’the establishment’. However, she recognizes
key problems, and being a very mobile, energetic person, if she will travel as
much to talk with people as she did when she was secretary of state, she might dispel the ’elitist Hillary’-myth. Time will tell whether she can find common
ground with most of the common people, who might desire that great change which
Obama promised but did not deliver so spectacularly as many people hoped for.
Her rather low-key nature might even be an advantage with people who are tired
of big rhetoric.
Hillary, as the first woman who could be elected as an American president,
has also the capability to attract masses of female voters, even though some
feminists are not sure about she being the next feminist icon.[4]
(Nor could she be as a politician...) She isn't enough hard-core in climate
change matters too, according to Ryan Koronowski.[5] In immigration questions Clinton tries to move closer to the current Democratic
opinion. I would consider her to be a careful centrist in most things. „Don’t
vote for anyone who says he or she would never compromise”.-said she[6],
and regarding the nature of politics, she is probably right.
This is the very same problem
because of which most democratic societies suffer: people want change, radical
progress, but then follow the established rules, (i.e.,voting for well know
figures, taking propaganda at face value etc.) and the status quo remains.
People who consider Hillary to much under the influence of Wall street should
wait before reading Marco Rubio about the absolute power of free market, and
the plight, that is ObamaCare, according to him.
Republicans will attack Hillary as a member of Clinton-dynasty, as an incompetent foreign policy-maker, and if
everything else fails, as a socialist money-waster. But knowing that the
Democratic party has a strong 'war-machine’, that may not be the real problem
for her. And even if the first two shots hit her, the last one is very
unlikely. If for no other reason, still to defeat a Tea Party –appeasing,
unlikable Republican candidate the Democrats will presumably join Hillary in
the end anyway. It seems now that either Jeb Bush or National Review-favorite
Marco Rubio would challenge Hillary. We will see more about the chances when we
will know more about the main issues of the coming election, whether they will
be safety, or economy, or immigration.
The enormous US debt and social inequality are most prominent problems of
US today. How can one raise wages
without facing accusations of being a socialist? How can one create a lasting
economic upward course and fiscal stability and at the same time welfare? Will
technological and social change help or endanger employment and stability? Is
’Obamacare’ a lasting and sustainable achievement? Can be there be a peace
between business interests and common people? Will American politics become
even more partisan and disconnected from the populace?
As if these questions would be not enough, global issues endanger the
vision of an evolving and democratic world, where progress is steady, and one
can hope freedom from want and fear, and freedom of worship and speech.[7] In
the questions of foreign policy Hillary may inherit a sack of angry cats. The
Obama- administration tried to conduct an idealistic, less hawkish policy,
which in time brought great results, but some spectacular failures as well.
Some of the results are of unquestionable worth (opening for Cuba) some are yet
undecided (nuclear negotiations with Iran.) Even in the ages old
Palestinian-crisis Obama begun to push for a more pro-Palestinian policy, since
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be solved by militant measures. (And
the creation of a Palestinian state long existed in the foreign policy -vision
of Democrats.) However, in Iraq the horrors of the postmodern
terrorist-gangster organisation ISIS (or Daesh) again showed that American
policy failed to make order after unsettling the power balance and political
stability in the region. (Even though that ’stability’ was dismal.)
In Lybia the destruction of Gaddafi’s rule has been supported by US
bombings, but the results proved to be dissatisfying, just as in case of
Egypt. The Arab spring brought hope for democracy, but delivered sectarianism,
religious intolerance, more blood and less tranquility in these countries. This
seriously discouraged idealism in foreign policy. In Syria, the US expressed a strong conviction about the unsustainable of the brutal Assad-regime, but the
rebels could not defeat Assad, and since Syria is also an enemy of ISIS not
everybody would like to see the dictator unseated.
It is also hard to come to terms with the fact, that the US-ally Turkey has
a great hostility against those very Kurds who fight the hardest against ISIS.
(Some of them are even communist guerrillas.) Putin’s invasion of Ukraine after
the fall of Yanukovich-government and the harsh conflict of interests and
power spheres in Eastern Europe was not caused by the USA, but still Hillary
must deal with it. (Putin will be less active presumably for a time due to the
economic situation of Russia.) With the TTIP-treaty looming over European Union
countries (at least in many people’s vision) anti-Americanism, generated mostly
by leftist parties will be again a threat for US-EU relations.
It was allegedly the foreign policy of Obama ’not to do stupid things’. Now
this slogan will not suffice anymore, and a strategic decision will be required
regarding how much Wilsonian optimism and Kissinger-like realism America can
allow herself in foreign policy. (Especially in the Middle-East.)Hillary was a
solid contributor to a stable American foreign policy, but post fest-um it is
evident that sometimes she miscalculated the effects of foreign policy actions.
She favors ’smart power’ a combination of power pressure and a culturally and
socially relevant persuasion.
Some dangers are new, but most of them have deep and ancient roots.
Democracy is never a lonely business: it must be defended both outside and
inside to keep it alive. The first task will be a long struggle: to utterly
defeat Islamist radicalism. And meanwhile turning forward Time’s wheel from
this New Gilded Age, the second, simultaneous task.
The real question
of Hillary Clinton will be whether she can be a person American democracy and
the world needs right now. If someone would ask what are the greatest problems
today, „it’s the world itself, stupid” could one reply with the familiar "Clintonian" slogan.
 |
REFERENCES:
[1] “Her campaign is
predicted to raise 1 billion $” (Economist, April 11-17th Issue.)
[2]Polls show 87 procent of Democrats would support her. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/hillary-clinton-poll_n_7058088.html
[3] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782.html#.VTTcNCHtlBc
[4]
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17830/hillary_clinton_presidential_race
[5] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/11/3645951/hillary-clinton-democratic-field-climate-change/
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWFMqUDy1gw
[7] I consciously use
here Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four freedom principle which I consider to be the
defining ideal of progressivist democracy.
