First, by introduction, let me say a little about myself, and about the broader presidential field. As for me, I'm a professor of education in my early 50s and a father of three, including one son with a serious disability. I've been politically active for some 25 years, including full-time stints with the United Farm Workers Union and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of Salvador. I've been involved in the movement against the Vietnam War, the labor movement, and in educational reform issues. I've lived six years abroad, with much of that time in Egypt and the Soviet Union.
I personally am thrilled with the Democratic field this year. I think that Barack Obama is one of the most exciting and promising Democratic politicians ever due to his oratorical skills, breadth of vision, understanding of diverse nations and cultures, and ability to bridge divides. John Edwards appeals to people across the political spectrum and has some outstanding policy proposals, including for health care. Bill Richardson has an extraordinary background in legislation, diplomacy, and governance at both the state and national level. And Al Gore has been a magnificent leader on some of the most important issues of our day, especially global warming.
Though I would proudly support all of these candidates for president if they were to win the nomination, none of them is my favorite. My favorite candidate, and the one who I am actively supporting in the Democratic nominating process, is Hillary Clinton.
There are many, many reasons I am supporting Hillary, including her professionalism, competence, and expertise; the skill and strength of her team; and her proven experience over several decades of working on behalf of women and children. Hillary is also providing a leadership role in child-safety legislation that I care deeply about. Due to the strengths of Hillary and her team, I consider her the most electable Democrat.
However, none of these points get to the real reason of why I am backing her for the presidency. That reason is simple: I share her vision. And I believe that vision can help bring us 8 more years (i.e., following 1993-2001) of peace and prosperity. Let me take each of these issues, peace and prosperity, one at a time.
Peace
The Bush administration has been a complete disaster in international (well, and domestic) affairs. The war on Iraq has been a huge drain on our resources, has threatened stability in the Mideast and the world, and has isolated us from nations and people around the world.
This war has strengthened many people's views (including on DKos) that the U.S. is by nature an imperialist power that is largely responsible for many of the ills in the world, and if the U.S. would only leave the rest of the world alone, we would all be a lot better off. However, I don't agree with this simplistic anti-imperialist perspective. Instead, I think the U.S. can and should be a major and active force for international stability, economic and social development, and freedom.
In particular, I take the international movement of radical Islamism as a serious threat to world peace and prosperity. A simple look at India/Kashmir, Russia/Chechnya, and the civil war in Algeria all indicate the dangers of militant Islamism even when it is not in conflict with the U.S. or even the West. Other countries, such as North Korea, also pose a serious threat to world peace and stability.
All this means that we need a president that can actively engage the world through promotion of economic development (both through aid and through easing trade barriers), through encouraging expansion of democracy, and through putting together broad coalitions to militarily oppose terrorist regimes or groups when necessary.
I think the Clinton administration was remarkably successful in these areas in 1993-2001, as seen by the growth of the world economy during that era, the steady expansion of democracy, and the successful mobilization of a broad coalition to confront the Milosevic regime. I would fully expect such policies to continue under a Hillary Clinton administration.
For example, I think this responsible leadership approach is seen in her view of Iraq. I understand that those who take an "anti-imperialist" view are angry at her wanting to keep troops in Iraq. They think that the sooner the U.S. disengages entirely, the better. I happen to think that things can get a lot worse in Iraq than they are now, and that it is the responsibility of the U.S., acting in concert with other countries in the region and the world, to help ensure that doesn't happen. I don't want a president that promises to disengage from Iraq or the Middle East. I want a president that promises to disengage from Iraq's civil war while putting our efforts on what should be our priorities in the region (fostering social and economic development, resolving conflicts, helping governments oppose terrorist groups, protecting our allies such as the Kurds, etc.) Given the current mess we are in, that's going to be a tall order for any president, but I have the most trust in a H. Clinton administration to meet these challenges.
Prosperity
The years of 1993-2001 were among the most prosperous in U.S. history. The economy grew for 116 straight months at an average rate of 4.0%. More than 22.5 million new jobs were crated. Real media family income rose by more than $6000 (some 15%). Unemployment dropped by nearly 3 percent to its lowest level in 30 years. Inflation dropped to its lowest level since the Kennedy administration. The poverty rate dropped precipitously. And we went from huge budget deficits to surpluses.
Some of this was due to good luck, but I believe that much of this was due to the Clinton administration policies. These policies include fiscal responsibility (making sure we take in as much or more as we pay out), a willingness to raise taxes on the wealthy, support for improved education (so that people are better prepared to find work and contribute to the economy), improved family policies (allowing more women and caregivers to work), welfare reform (helping to move people from welfare to the workforce), and easing of international trade barriers.
I'm sure there are many people on this list who see globalization as a horrible enemy that needs to be stopped at all cost. However, I believe that increased global trade and contact is of important economic and social benefit, both for people in the U.S. and people around the world. I also believe that any efforts to isolate ourselves will only be shooting ourselves in the foot. What we need is not protectionism, but rather policies that will help the U.S. workforce compete in a global economy. These included improved educational policies (such as Hillary's recent initiative on pre-school education), universal health insurance, and transitional support (unemployment insurance, retraining programs) for those dislocated from jobs.
Finally, as suggested above, I am concerned not only with prosperity of the people in the U.S., but also with international prosperity. Over the last few decades, hundreds of millions have been lifted from poverty, especially in Asia. There has been much pain and environmental challenges that have accompanied rapid growth, for example in China, but overall the lifting of such a large number of people from lives of impoverishment is a tremendous good. Yet still many hundreds of millions of people around the world remain in poverty. And prosperity for people around the world is linked to peace and prosperity at home. I personally do not see India, for example, principally as a threat to American jobs. Rather, I see it as a thriving multicultural and multilingual democracy and a long-time important ally of the U.S. I believe that enhanced trade and economic cooperation between the U.S. and India is in the interests of both our countries, and I am proud to support a candidate who co-chairs the Senate India caucus.
Now, do I care about Americans who have lost jobs due to NAFTA? Yes, very much. And as indicated above, we need policies to help those who lose jobs. But look at the big picture: the U.S. gained 22.5 million jobs during the Clinton presidency, and I believe that an open economy, including easing of trade barriers, was important for that economic growth and job expansion. So let's have an open economy, and continue to gain tens of millions of jobs, rather than a protectionist economy with high unemployment rates, such as in some other countries.
Bill and Hillary
As you can see, my support for Hillary is based largely on the policies and successes of the first Clinton administration. I think this is justified, for several reasons. First, Hillary and Bill have always been a closely-knit political partnership. Bill certainly made that clear many times in his presidency. Secondly, the stated policies of Hillary are very similar to those of Bill. Third, Bill is very active in Hillary's campaign. Fourth, many of their advisors are the same. Bill may be more charismatic than Hillary, but Hillary is apparently much more disciplined and controlled (and we saw the negative consequences of lack of discipline in Bill's presidency). In summary, I think there is every reason to expect that Hillary will continue with the broad Clintonian vision that I support.
As indicated earlier, other Democratic candidates have strengths. However, in every other case, either I disagree somewhat with their vision or lack full confidence in their ability to bring it to fruition. Of all the candidates, I have the most confidence in Hillary Clinton and her team to build the relationships and implement the policies that will help bring peace and prosperity to the U.S. and world in the coming years.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. Comments welcome.
Comments are closed on this story.