Is Hillary Clinton a Neoconservative?

Something that I notice gets talked about a lot is whether Hillary Clinton is a neoconservative. And in fact, some folks are already prepared to declare Hillary to be the ideological heir to George W. Bush, at the very least on foreign policy issues.

But wait, is this true? Is Hillary really a neocon? Or does her record show something completely different?

Follow me after the flip for more...

So is Hillary a neocon? If we are to believe what Nick Rivera wrote at The Moderate Voice, then I guess we're in for another Dubya:

Hillary Clinton may be loathed by leading neoconservatives and may loathe them in return. Yet they have more in common with each other than either of them would care to admit. As a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton has had seven years to lay out her political positions, and she hasn’t shied away from making speeches or meeting with constituents. But in the end, a politician is judged by how he/she exercises that unique power that distinguishes him/her from the rest of us–the power to vote for or against legislation. And on many of the most controversial and far-reaching pieces of legislation that have been passed these last seven years, Senator Clinton has voted the de-facto neoconservative position.

But wait, is he telling us the whole truth? After all, look at her voting record. Yes, take a good look at
Hillary's record and compare it to the actual neocons in the Senate. There's obviously a huge difference.

And oh yes, what kind of legislation is Hillary pushing for in the Senate? One would think that if she were as much of a neocon as some detractors would portray her, that she would be hellbent on asserting a more "muscular foreign policy". But wait, I don't see that. Instead, I see an "Iraq Troop Reduction Act" that Hillary wrote. I see legislation preventing any funding for military action in Iran that Hillary is cosponsoring. I see legislation requiring the Pentagon to prepare for Iraq redeployment. Do these actions look all that "neoconservative" to you? They don't to me.

But do you what's even more telling to me? Hillary Clinton has said herself that she rejects the basic tenets of neoconservatism. Don't believe me? Believe The Guardian when they asked her about whether the Iraq Occupation falls in line with Cold War era liberals' view of containment.

It's hard to take what was a philosophy with respect to the use and containment of power during the Cold War and try to shoehorn it into a post-Cold War context. So I don't really think there is an easy or satisfying answer to that. [...] I think we can have an approach that tries to project power and authority in an appropriate way that draws on all aspects of American power, that inspires and attracts as much as coerces, if we avoid false choices driven by ideology and theory. One of the lessons that I think we all should take out of the last six-and-a-half years is that ideologically driven foreign policy that is not rooted in a realistic assessment of the world as we find it today is not likely to result in any positive outcome.

Now I don't know about you, but I don't sense anything neoconservative about Hillary's views on foreign policy. OK, still not believing me? Read Hillary's essay for Foreign Affairs.

Our nation has paid a heavy price for rejecting a long-standing bipartisan tradition of global leadership rooted in a preference for cooperating over acting unilaterally, for exhausting diplomacy before making war, and for converting old adversaries into allies rather than making new enemies. At a moment in history when the world's most pressing problems require unprecedented cooperation, this administration has unilaterally pursued policies that are widely disliked and distrusted.

Yet it does not have to be this way. Indeed, our allies do not want it to be this way. The world still looks to the United States for leadership. American leadership is wanting, but it is still wanted. Our friends around the world do not want the United States to retreat. They want once again to be allied with the nation whose values, leadership, and strength have inspired the world for the last century.

To reclaim our proper place in the world, the United States must be stronger, and our policies must be smarter. The next president will have a moment of opportunity to restore America's global standing and convince the world that America can lead once again. As president, I will seize that opportunity by reintroducing ourselves to the world. I will rebuild our power and ensure that the United States is committed to building a world we want, rather than simply defending against a world we fear.

And if you read Hillary's full essay, you'll see that she's absolutely ready to revive that American tradition of showing leadership thropugh cooperation instead of occupation. That's Hillary Clinton's real foreign policy. She wants to engage the world again, not combat against it. And how much farther from George W. Bush's neoconservatism could that be?

So are you convinced yet? Can you see that Hillary Clinton is not the neoconservative that some misinformed detractors proclaim her to be? Now yes, there may be some just critiques of Hillary's past actions and past votes. But now that you see where Hillary actually stands on foreign policy, can you really call her a neocon? I don't think so.

And frankly, I'm glad to say that. :-)