Disclaimer right at the start – this piece is not an
argument in support of Donald Trump. I have
just as serious reservations about him as well.
The Clintons continue to be surrounded by controversy, as
they have been all through their political careers. This past week Hillary was finally
interviewed by the FBI about the classified materials on her home server,
probably almost a last step before they decide whether to press charges. And Bill muddied the waters yet more by
having an impromptu private meeting with attorney general Loretta Lynch, who
has the final say on whether to indict Hillary or not. Whether that discussion
was innocuous or not, the perception is that once again the Clintons are
rigging the system in their favor. (and why would Bill Clinton delay his own
flight for half an hour just to have an “innocuous” friendly discussion with
the attorney general about grandchildren on the airport tarmac?)
Next week a former secret service agent who worked in the
Clinton White House is publishing a book which portrays Hillary in private as
paranoid, vengeful, angry, brutal to staff (including the Secret Service
agents who protected them) and family, and at times out of control. Hillary
supporters are already trying to downplay this description, but in fact it is
perfectly consistent with descriptions others have given over the years of Hillary’s
private behavior, so it is most likely fairly accurate.
Hillary supporters and yellow dog Democrats will of course vote
for her anyway, either not believing all of this or somehow excusing it all
away (perhaps as a “vast right-wing conspiracy”, as Hillary herself always tries
to do). But for the rest of us it is clearly
unsettling to think that our possible next president would come into the White
House with so much unsavory baggage.
But the real question is: could we trust her competence
as president? Sure, she and Bill will no
doubt continue to enrich themselves with “contributions” from foreign countries
and others to the Clinton Foundation, the family slush fund – the “pay for play”
stuff that has been going on all along, even while she was Secretary of State.
Sure, she will no doubt protect the Wall Street firms who paid her outrageous speaking
fees. Sure, Bill will no doubt continue
to have mistresses around the White House.
All of this will continue to provoke constant scandals and media
coverage, but in the end it will not really matter that much in the larger
scheme of things. The real question is
how Hillary would do in managing the really serious world affairs (the Russia
threat, the China threat, ISIS, the
Brexit consequences, etc) and domestic affairs (unemployment, wage stagnation, climate
change, tax policy, gun control, discrimination, etc.).
For foreign affairs we do have some history while she was Secretary
of State. The “Russian reset” was a disaster, showing a great deal of naiveté,
but perhaps more on Obama’s part than on Hillary’s part. The administration clearly
underestimated the ISIS threat at the beginning, but again that may have been
more Obama’s fault than Hillary’s. In fact, if one looks carefully, Clinton
really did almost nothing of note on her own accord while she was Secretary of
State – Obama appointed others as “czars” to handle most of the really important
stuff. (such as Alan Bersin to handle the
boarders, Carol
Browner to handle energy policy, and Richard
Holbrooke to handle Afghanistan and Pakistan) She flew around a lot, made herself look important, met
a lot of foreign leaders, but really didn’t make much difference to real
policy. We do know that she was (and
probably still is) much more inclined to get us further into the Middle East
tar baby than Obama was.
For domestic affairs it is clear that she will simply follow
the establishment progressive line, which in effect means she won’t attack any
of the real economic problems in ways that might discomfort her wealthy private
and corporate sponsors, or especially any of the people who are “contributing”
to her personal wealth.
The fatal flaw that worries me most is that because of her paranoia
she will undoubtedly continue to surround herself with loyalists who won’t stand
up to her and tell her when she is doing something stupid. That has been her pattern in both this
campaign and in the last – she picked people who were loyal and subservient rather
than competent (a competent staff would never have let her get into her current
FBI problems in the first place). Given her anger and paranoia, having a set of
weak, ultra-loyal advisors around her incapable of restraining her worst tendencies
seems to me fairly dangerous in today’s world.
As I said at the start, this isn’t a plug for Trump, who has
his own serious failings. But it is a warning, since Hillary may indeed become
our next president.
Posts
