I figure it’s time to lay out why I think Clinton is the better candidate of the two major party candidates in a way that’s not about ideology or “sigh, she’s the lesser of two evils.” As much as there are things I really, really don’t like about her, and as much as I would have loved to see any one of my young Republican heroes deliver the entire government into Republican hands, that just wasn’t in the cards. So since I am an optimist, and since I think she actually will be a pretty good President, I’m going to try to convince the two people here who aren’t voting for her why she’s the better choice. Also, I think some of her supporters need a reason to support her that goes beyond campaign spin. And maybe it’s better if they hear it from someone who under normal circumstances wouldn’t support her.
First, experience. While Clinton’s has often inflated her resume, she has done an outstanding job in her two official positions: Senator and Secretary of State. As a Senator, she kept her head down and worked hard and despite not being a native, represented the state of New York faithfully. With an eye on the Presidency, but the serious part of being President, she took on committee assignments that best prepared her for the job: Budget, Armed Services, Environmental, Health. As a Senator, she visited Iraq, not just to show her face, but to actually find out what was going on. She forged relationships with the military brass. As Secretary of State, she was even more brilliant. I know not everyone sees it, but when I see the Obama foreign policy team led by John Kerry, I appreciate just how much Clinton being at State benefitted the Obama administration. Clinton led the effort to oust one of the worst dictators of our time in Qaddafi. No, it didn’t go perfectly, but Clinton doesn’t make the decisions about what military forces to use or how to handle post-war Libya. That was the Commander in Chief. Clinton was always willing to negotiate but never made a deal she didn’t think was good for America. Some of those unfinished deals got completed by Kerry, and again, IMO, put her in a position she didn’t deserve to be in, having to defend deals she might not have agreed to herself(cough, Iran). And speaking of Iran, she was the primary push behind the tougher sanctions that brought them to the table in the first place.
Second, temperament. Clinton is cautious, but decisive. That’s the perfect combination in a leader. She’ll never do anything rash, but once committed to action she’ll see it through and not wet her pants because of criticism. Obama introduced a very dangerous precedent into US foreign policy: the bluff. He threatened military action against Syria if they used gas, he didn’t follow through. I don’t believe Clinton bluffs. I don’t think it would ever occur to her to do something like that. She also won’t make rash threats as GWB did. But I don’t think anyone will doubt her resolve. If they do, what happens next is on them, not us. Looking at you, Kim.
Third, as Ezra Klein observed, she’s a great listener. This is a very rare quality in Presidents and politicians in general. Most of them would rather talk. Clinton doesn’t seem to relish the speeches or the debates. Her husband really dug the interpersonal stuff too, although even he could get long winded in negotiating sessions. Again, many here disagree with me, but what I’ve seen the last eight years is a President who likes to hear himself talk negotiating with himself over what he’ll give Republicans, and telling them that they should be happy with his offers because they are just so darn generous. Maybe you discount their feelings on this issue, but Republicans have felt generally alienated from Obama, not just publicly, but in private as well. He does not like negotiating and has often outsourced the job to Joe Biden, which is when things have generally gotten done. If the Republicans treat Clinton the same way as they did Obama, it won’t be because they felt slighted by her. Clinton will listen, really listen, to their concerns, and unlike Obama, she has a history of personal relationships with a lot of conservative lawmakers and even some conservative blowhards like Tucker Carlson. For someone with such an awkward public persona, she is personally ingratiating and has turned many political enemies into amiable friends who she can at least talk to. Contrast that to Obama and Republicans, who have nothing but contempt for one another. Will the results be different under Clinton’s leadership? Maybe not. Maybe the GOP is just too far gone and maybe their political calculations might lead them to think 100% opposition is the best way to go. But personal relationships still matter in DC, and Clinton can talk to these people. Joe Biden was a proof of concept that this could work. When Biden took the lead in the debt ceiling negotiations, things started moving. Republicans can be dealt with, I believe. Biden would have been even better, but Clinton can do this.
Fourth, the Clintons have always been what Mickey Kaus derisively refers to as “goo-goos”, Good Government Types. We’ve all heard about the Clintons’ personal money grubbing and flirting with violating the law(while never actually crossing that line). I’m not here to relitigate that again, but I did need to point out the public image of them to get to what makes them great in public service. Bill had the instincts of a reformer and put his words into actions. Reforming how government worked was a top priority and he assigned Al Gore to it. It was called the Reinventing Government Initiative and it gored a lot of Democratic oxes as well as Republican ones. Clinton doesn’t seem to have those same instincts, but she does seem to recognize how valuable unsexy endeavours like that are. As believers in activist government, they recognized that government must work well, or else the public won’t support it. The problem for Kaus types is that focusing on making government efficient can take away from just getting the programs working, period. It can be more important to just get money out the door to those who need it, even if that means more waste. Robert Reich has made the same argument in the past. IMO, that’s just sloppy liberal thinking. The problems Democrats want to solve have existed for a long time and getting an inefficient, bloated program up and running quickly so you can solve these problems yesterday is just silly. Better to start off a program slow and ramp it up as you learn things. Or in the case of existing programs, make things a little more difficult on the beneficiaries for awhile, but improve the overall performance and responsiveness of the program. Plus there’s the politics: if government is efficient and spends money wisely, it’s less vulnerable to conservative arguments against government programs. But anyway, Hillary is firmly in the “goo goo” camp.
Finally, I just happen to think she’s one of the better Democratic candidates we’ve seen. Let’s face it, even if you are a Democrat, you have to admit that a parade of losers and ineffectuals have represented the party over the years. I don’t think she’s better than Bill Clinton or Al Gore. Again, just my opinion. But I think she’s miles ahead of Dukakis, Kerry, Carter, Mondale, and Obama. Trump by contrast is the worst GOP nominee in my lifetime. When a party does well grading on their own curve, that deserves some credit. I do think there were better Democrats. I have a great deal of respect for Jim Webb, Lincoln Chaffee, and Martin O’Malley. Great public servants with sterling resumes. Tim Kaine is also excellent and like Biden, someone I can unreservedly support in the future if he tries to run. But Clinton is also solid, and her judgment in picking someone who can replace her immediately if something happens reflects well on her.
So if you’re supporting Clinton, you’ve certainly got a lot of good reasons to do so. With Trump I can think of only one: you’re fed up with typical politicians. I can relate, I am too, but Trump’s not the right guy. If it was Ross Perot, I’d be on board with you. Heck, I was even willing to give Ben Carson a shot until it became clear he wouldn’t do his homework. If you just can’t vote for Clinton, vote Johnson. He’s going to do fairly well and he’s a protest vote that will actually be heard to some extent. Trump is a protest vote that will end in disaster and reflect badly on all future outsider candidates. Clinton is a rock solid choice for President. She won’t be a game changer like FDR or Reagan but she’ll get us through the next 4-8 years until someone who is ready to actually change things comes along. I have full confidence in her abilities.
