This is Part Four of “Hillary, still not a progressive: only copying Bernie’s rhetoric” from a portion of Hillary’s Nevada Speech; following Part I: Linkapalooza, Part II: Environment, and Part III: Women.
This diary touches on Hillary’s record on social justice, and I’m not going to lie, I’m facing this with a bit of trepidation. I’m sure there is going to be some comment with a word that ends in splainin’, but I’ll just have to deal with that.
Hillary’s record is real, verifiable, and out there. These are facts, and facts are stubborn little rascals.
And, for the one or two Hillary people who come wandering in, I’m going to save you some trouble. A selection of comments for you to peruse and use, so you don’t have to actually rebut anything in this diary.
Gee, I didn't realize Bernie had progressive issues copyrighted.
Incredulous Bernie supporters finding out that Hillary really IS a Progressive.
I didn’t realize that all progressive ideas originated with Bernie.
Fine, Bernie is the sole proprietor of all things progressive. Only Bernie gets to be a progressive. And all of us Bernie supporters believe this with all our hearts. Sure, why not. /Snark
Hillary: Still not a progressive.
Below is a portion of the transcript of Hillary Clinton's remarks after defeating Bernie Sanders in the Nevada caucuses.
SPEAKER: FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Clinton: And, don't you think it's time to face head on the reality of systemic racism, and invest in communities that have been left out and left behind?
That means reforming our criminal justice system, our immigration system, ensuring that people with disabilities have the same opportunities to work and fully participate in our society.
Now, for all I know Hillary’s Harlem renaissance is absolutely sincere. I can’t look into her heart or her head. I’m not telling anyone how they should think about her, or to question their reasons for wanting to vote or not to vote for her. I doubt I would change minds anyway, and Bernie’s views on systemic racism aren’t fully evolved, either. Let’s just say that, if her conversion is real, it developed quickly and recently.
Hillary Clinton’s Black Conversion
Failing to win white voters in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton needs her black firewall like never before. Her speech yesterday in Harlem touched on criminal justice and economic opportunity. Those remarks follow a stop in majority-black Flint, Mich., to decry its lead-water crisis, and a debate in segregated Milwaukee, where she pledged to “tackle” discrimination. She also took a shot at Bernie Sanders’ criticism of Wall Street with the question: “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, would that end racism?”
Never mind that Wall Street investors and bankers play a huge role in discriminatory redlining, predatory lending, and foreclosures. Clinton, who earned an estimated $1.8 million in big-bank speaking fees in 2013 and 2014, shamelessly counts on blacks for support while she is engaged with the system that holds back the aspirations of too many black people. She is hoping that no one remembers how husband Bill put the black poor before the criminal-justice firing squad and how she is in bed with the big banks that stole the American dream from black homeowners.
[snip]
The Clintons’ popularity with the black elite translated into a massive advantage early in Hillary’s 2008 campaign. One CNN poll had Clinton ahead of Barack Obama among black women 68 percent to 25 percent. The moment the race tightened, Clinton’s team racially choked. Her campaign publicly attacked Obama’s youthful cocaine use and his appeal to more conservative white voters. When her lead evaporated in South Carolina, Bill famously flipped the racial switch to whine that Hillary couldn’t win because she’s white. Little remembered is that she failed to win outright any age category of non-black women in South Carolina.
As far as criminal justice is concerned, I hope her Sanderization sticks. I think free college is cheaper than keeping non-violent drug offenders in prison. Oh, and Hillary still supports the death penalty.
Why Hillary Clinton Lacks Credibility On Criminal Justice Reform
As first lady in the 1990s, Clinton was a cheerleader for the “tough on crime” policies that produced the “era of mass incarceration” she now condemns. “We need more police,” she said in a 1994 speech. “We need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.” The Clinton administration gave us all that and more, bragging about building more prisons, locking up more people (including nonviolent offenders) for longer stretches, opposing parole, expanding the death penalty, putting more cops on the street, and implementing a “comprehensive anti-drug strategy.”
In a 2001 report, the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) noted that Bill Clinton “stole the ‘get tough on crime’ show” from Republicans by “consistently support[ing] increased penalties and additional prison construction.” The highlight of his efforts was the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which subsidized cops and prisons, restricted gun ownership, expanded the use of the death penalty, created new mandatory minimum sentences, and added to the list of federal crimes, which were already too numerous to count. Looking at the results of the crackdown that Clinton led at the federal level and encouraged at the state level, JPI dubbed him “the incarceration president.” The total prison population grew by 673,000 during Clinton’s eight years in office, compared to 448,000 during Ronald Reagan’s two terms. The number of federal prisoners doubled under Clinton, rising more than it did during the previous 12 years under his two Republican predecessors.
Hillary’s immigration policy looks good on the surface; but immigration, free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA , TPP, and her hawkish foreign policy intersect to make for a disturbing picture.
Hillary Clinton Cries Crocodile Tears for Latin American Immigrants
by
A look at her foreign policy record with regard to Latin America finds plenty to be scared about. Indeed, the very prospect of Clinton in the driver’s seat of the American empire should trigger alarm bells in anyone who has witnessed or lived through the consequences of Central America’s “dirty wars.” Yes, the bloody legacy of regime change in America’s backyard started with President Reagan, not Secretary Clinton, but two things—her embrace of Henry Kissinger as a “friend” and “mentor” on
foreign policy and her personal involvement in the 2009 coup in Honduras that forcibly removed
President Manuel Zelaya, a left populist, from power—reveal her commitment to maintaining a legacy of political terror in Latin America that has caused millions of people to flee their homelands.
[snip]
Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy Research has reported extensively on the Honduran coup and its bloody aftermath, as well as Clinton’s personal involvement in forcibly removing a democratically elected leader from office and preventing his return—a plan of action to which she not only admits but boasts of in her memoir (and ode to Kissinger), “Hard Choices.”
[snip]
SANDERS: Secretary Clinton, I do have a disagreement here. If my memory is correct, I think when we saw children coming from these horrendous, horrendously violent areas of Honduras and neighboring countries, people who are fleeing drug violence and cartel violence, I thought it was a good idea to allow those children to stay in this country. That was not, as I understand it, the secretary’s position. ...
CLINTON: ... Two quick responses. One, with respect to the Central American children, I made it very clear that those children needed to be processed appropriately, but we also had to send a message to families and communities in Central America not to send their children on this dangerous journey in the hands of smugglers.
SANDERS: ... But in terms of the children, I don’t know to whom you’re sending a message. Who are you sending a message to? These are children who are leaving countries and neighborhoods where their lives are at stake. That was the fact. I don’t think we use them to send a message. I think we welcome them into this country and do the best we can to help them get their lives together.
[snip]
Bloody coups aside, perhaps the biggest single action that transformed immigration into the “problem” we face today was President Bill Clinton’s implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. NAFTA opened the floodgates to transnational corporate profitmaking by removing the barriers that the U.S.-Mexico border posed to the free flow of investment. But instead of being a magic wand that, as Bill Clinton contended, would bring economic prosperity for all and “fix” undocumented immigration to the United States, the impacts of the free-trade agreement on the Mexican economy actually increased the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States by 185 percent.
How did NAFTA and CAFTA (the Central America Free Trade Agreement) propel undocumented immigration? In academia, we can spend years counting all the ways. But in large part, it was because of the absolute devastation “free trade” brought to these countries’ family-based agricultural economies. Peasants who had supplied themselves and their communities with staple foods for centuries could not compete when thrust into a global market against a flood of cheap corn and wheat produced by the U.S. government-subsidized agricultural industry. This, and the opening of collectively held lands for sale on the private market, left millions of peasant families broke and landless, with no choice but to go north. Here is a vivid description of what that meant for communities on the ground:
Here’s Hillary on people with disabilities.
Washington, Jan. 23 – In an appearance for his wife, former President Bill Clinton told the crowd he loves Iowa because people are not afraid to tell him exactly what to do.
Most recently, he recounted a story with an individual who commended him for getting a law changed while president “that said people with disabilities could go to work and still keep their Medicaid coverage.”
Speaking in Marshalltown, Iowa on Jan. 15, Clinton called it a “win-win deal.”
“If you have $100,000 in medical bills to maintain your condition every year, why take a $30,000 job? But if you take the $30,000 job you’ve got something to do, you’re contributing to the economy, you’re paying into Social Security, you’re paying into Medicare.”
In this conversation, Clinton said, he was told the importance of doing the same thing for Social Security Disability Insurance, which is currently an all or nothing benefit. “For people with genuine disabilities, we need a sliding scale,” Clinton said.
I don’t know, wouldn’t a single payer healthcare plan take care of a lot of these problems? Means testing and sliding scales seem overly complicated, like everything Clinton proposes. This isn’t my bailiwick, so feel free to take to task in the comments.
Coming up: job creators, student debt and a lot more.
And remember, why should you vote for a Hillary who talks like Bernie when you can vote for a Bernie who talks Bernie, complete with windmill arms?
Oh, and Hillary — not a progressive.