Many folks around these parts of the internet are tired of hearing that Hillary Clinton is going to be the inevitable candidate in the general election and that we should as Democrats support her out of hand. This argument is often presented in claims that if we don't support Hillary in the election - then
insert crazy republican name here will win the White House and all of our policy ideas will be regulated to a dustbin. That has a great deal of truth in it as we saw from the uncompromising stance Republicans took during the Bush years and how little progressive legislation advanced and how much far right and corporatist (third way democrats - blue dogs) got to pass everything they wanted under the sun in a plethora of greed and lost opportunities.
It is however an unconvincing argument when applied towards motivating partisan democrats or low information voters to vote for their own interests, social or economic. That argument is rooted in fear - which liberals do not respond to in the same Pavlovian manner in which republicans respond to fear. Messages of gloom and doom don't do well with liberals, or they are only effective up to a point until it has a depressing effect on them. Liberals in turn respond to messaging that conveys a sense of urgency, but tempered with messages that appeal to idealism, hope, and not to sound cliche, change. That, along with other factors is one of the reasons Barack Obama was able to motivate the youth vote, first time voters, and the activist base of the party while Clinton was lambasted over her Iraq war vote and association with third way Clintonesque economic policies.
Partisan centrist democrats often use the argument that "IT'S THE SUPREME COURT STUPID" to mock liberal democrats who aren't willing to compromise ethically and regard a vote for Hillary as the same as enabling the financial industry that nearly brought the worlds economy down in shambles. It's a very powerful argument. One of the few that would make me pull the lever if Hillary -is coronated- wins the nomination. The Roberts court needs to be reversed on Citizens United, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, and restore the ACA should it be gutted as well. The confluence of money, power and corporations on the bench hasn't been seen since the 1890s and a Hillary presidency would at least stave off further consolidation of our oligarchy on the bench.
Why do Progressives distrust Hillary so much?
There are multiple reasons why progressives feel unease with another Clinton presidency. First and foremost most believe her populist stances to be unauthentic in nature. Last year Clinton addressed Goldman Sachs and gave a heart warming speech that wasn't recorded but:
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Jim O’Neill, the laconic Brit who heads the bank’s asset management division, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).
But then some time later:
A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton delivered a much-touted policy speech at the New America Foundation in Washington, where she talked passionately about the financial plight of Americans who "are still barely getting by, barely holding on, not seeing the rewards that they believe their hard work should have merited." She bemoaned the fact that the slice of the nation's wealth collected by the top 1 percent—or 0.01 percent—has "risen sharply over the last generation,"
Which one is the Hillary we are supposed to trust? The one who appears before Wall Street and arguably the same folks who nearly brought the entire financial world to its knees and has impoverished the opportunities of a generation that still hasn't recovered from the meldown of 2007 - or is it this populist who believes that Americans "are still barely getting by, barely holding on," ect? Which one is it? After President Obama many liberals are skeptical of a politician who says a great deal about income inequality while offering nothing but platitudes and ignoring real legislative action like the "Peoples Budget" - which actually addresses many of our economic problems.
In stark contrast, the “People’s Budget: A Raise for America”—authored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus with assistance from the Economic Policy Institute Policy Center—invests in our nation in a robust, straightforward way. It would create millions of- jobs, repair our crumbling roads and bridges, make college affordable, improve our schools and other community services, and get us to full employment in two years.
Where does the money come from? No “magic asterisks” here—wealthy households and big corporations are finally asked to pay their fair share.
It would be easy to get a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren presidency to support such common sense legislation (if we have the House and Senate) That is why so many progressives are trying to get Elizabeth Warren into the race - she is authentic in her populist beliefs and has a history that doesn't change with the political winds. Hillary is not that candidate and she would have to move mountains to make people change the perception of her as being nothing more than a stooge for Wall Street and rubinite economics. Has Hillary evolved in her positions or is she merely mouthing the words that she thinks will get her into the White House. She's had Elizabeth Warren over to have some private talks, but at the same time is hiring folks from Monsanto for messaging.
Another massive point of contention for progressives still remains her vote authorizing the Iraq war. She is still paying for that vote today and I can see it as being an issue in the primary contest when Clinton declares. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been the longest in our history as a nation. Longer than our involvement in WW2 and longer than Vietnam. The opportunity cost as a nation has been huge and remain two of our most ill advised foreign policy blunders that has cost the lives of thousands of American service members, and hundreds of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi lives - ether directly or indirectly - by war. Which Clinton can progressives expect to get in the White House? One that will disentangle ourselves from foreign military adventures or one that will embroil us further in conflict? Will we get another war in Iran? Another war in Syria? Clinton is decided hawkish on foreign policy at a time the world needs more love, peace and understanding, and less of the Bush doctrine.
Hillary Clinton has both the advantage and disadvantage of being in the political limelight for the last twenty years. Many progressives find themselves asking the party if it isn't time to move past the faces of the 1990s and have the party standard carried by new voices. Again - one of the reasons President Obama was so appealing in the primary and general election. He represented - however wrongly - the mantle of change and liberalism. He was youthful in appearance, elegant when speaking, and projected a measure of calm certitude that made McCain look even more petty and racist than he was. Hillary in turn did not inspire enough people for her to win the nomination - and progressives are right to fear that she won't again.
Many progressives are fearful of where she stands on Climate Change. Are we going to see meaningful action to address Climate Change during her presidency (If we deliver the House and Senate) or are we going to get the Obama bullshit of "All of the
Above"? I don't know because even while Hillary has made some good pronouncements and climate action, those words are often tempered with industry pragmatic caution.
Hillary Clinton expounded on climate change, energy exports, natural gas drilling and green energy Thursday — all while managing to play it safe.
At Sen. Harry Reid’s National Clean Energy Summit, Clinton called climate change “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.”
Then in the same speech:
She also cited the potential benefits of producing and exporting natural gas and oil.
“Assuming that our production stays at the levels, or even as some predict, goes higher, I do think there’s a play there,” she said, noting it could help Europe and Asia amid continuing problems with Iran. “This is a great economic advantage, a competitive advantage, for us. … We don’t want to give that up.”
Are progressives to believe that Hillary will go in on Climate Change? I'd like to hope that she would as the world is burning and we have only a matter of a few years to convert full to solar and wind before the point of no return passes. This will be one of the most important elections of our lives and may determine if the human species is going to survive or go extinct within the next hundred years. That alone is enough to be very skeptical of any candidate who isn't willing to say "Solar now, Solar now, Solar now." I don't know which Hillary we would be getting in the general election or as president and that makes me - as a voter continue to look elsewhere for alternatives who will take this issue as seriously as it is without in the same breath playing lip service to the oil and gas industries.
The above are valid arguments as to why Progressives are very distrustful of another Clinton presidency and why we are so reluctant to go all in on a Clinton presidency before the primary has even started. I think Clinton did a decent job at the State department, was the candidate who should have won in 2007 and perhaps spared us all the "post partisan" nonsense but her time has pasted and I personally would like to see new voices rise in the party. She carries around political baggage and I don't know what she truly believes on issues that are going to shape our nations future. That uncertainty, along with her ability to say the most politically expedient message lends to the air of her inauthentic vibe. Will she be all in for regular Americans? Will she go after the bankers? Will she tackle Climate Change in a meaningful way? Will she call out loudly systemic injustices in our justice system and class/race inequalities? Will she appoint liberals to positions of power rather than corporatist like Geithner and Summers?
These are all pressing questions - and questions that the onus belongs squarely upon the supporters of Hillary and Hillary herself to answer. It isn't up to progressives to make the case for Hillary - it's up to Hillary to convince us that she deserves the nomination and isn't just mouthing the correct words to get it.
Remember - It was Milquetoast conservadem centrist positions that gave us 2010 and 2014. If we want to win then we need a liberal and one willing to fight for their convictions.
4:43 PM PT: Great comment by Joedemocrat in Armando's diary.
First, I am probably somewhere between the pragmatic and left flank camps on Daily Kos...
I believe the left flank views Hillary and post 1984 business friendly economics as the problem, not the solution. They see how policies that Hillary favored such as NAFTA, WTO, welfare reform and deregulation contributed to the inequality we have today. They want the Democratic Party to return to New Deal liberalism and Keynesian economics it stood for in the 1930 to 1980 period.
They want a large scale 1930's jobs bill that helps the millions of long term unemployed. They want a large green jobs bill that will address both our economic and ecological problems with the same dollars. They want corporate power and Wall Street addressed in meaningful ways, not just lip service or campaign rhetoric that is forgotten. They want to see labor empowered again and living wages and trade and outsourcing jobs addressed. They want bold action on climate change because time is short and we need to act now.
These are all things the mainstream Democratic Party didn't adequately do in the post 1984 period. You can blame that partly on the obstructionist GOP but not entirely.
In other words, to them Hillary is more of the same which is the problem not the solution.
Also, I think a lot of the left flank feels the country has gone so far downhill they don't feel we have time for pragmatism and incremental change especially on climate change..