I have not been a big fan of Mrs. Clinton. Recently I was asked to defend my position. This is what I wrote. (I must admit, with the primaries and all, all of them, and Clinton in particular, are wearying):
I think there are several problems.
The first is a little unfair. Although Hillary is mainly in the public eye and discussion because of her husband, she is really not responsible for his errors. Still, since her success originates with him, she does get some of his downside. And his downside is big--and generic. No other adult male in the U.S. would have escaped the judicial system for what he did. Abuse of an employee--an intern--and then perjury in front of the grand jury--no guy would have survived that. While that is not her fault, it reeks of elite privilege, the same privilege I expect will protect her in the security violations which she unquestionably has done--violations again no average person would survive. This distinction between her and the rest of us mortals makes people like me very unhappy. The Europeans think this distinction routine but the Americans do not.
Next, her accomplishments are obscure to most observers. That does not necessarily disqualify her but it does not recommend her. Her one main achievement was her health care plan in the 90s when, for no discernible reason, she was made the head of a healthcare restructuring, a plan that would have dropped medical spending 38%. That would have been devastating to the industry and to the health of the country. Perhaps that is necessary--even crucial-- but no one elected her to do it. Why was she put in charge of it? See below.
Next, her errors have been big. As Secretary of State she presided over the Egyptian disaster and the Libyan fiasco and has declared them a success. Now these were not her creation, that we know. She was the agent of the Obama administration. And the policies were only Bush 2 in liberal drag; still they have been seriously bad mistakes. But she has claimed they were successful. Not recognizing that they were not is worse.
Next, she is a self-declared "progressive." What is that? This definition from George Will is not bad, written about free speech on campus: "If you believe, as progressives do, that human nature is not fixed, and hence is not a basis for understanding natural rights. And if you believe, as progressives do, that human beings are soft wax who receive their shape from the society that government shapes. And if you believe, as progressives do, that people receive their rights from the shaping government. And if you believe, as progressives do, that people are the sum of the social promptings they experience. Then it will seem sensible for government, including a university’s administration, to guarantee not freedom of speech but freedom from speech. From, that is, speech that might prompt its hearers to develop ideas inimical to progress, and might violate the universal entitlement to perpetual serenity." This definition may be too confining but it is generally true that the progressive political philosophy favors top-down imposition of policies created by self-appointed elites that are neither tried nor necessarily true and dismisses the idea of basic rights of citizens that limit government action, regardless of intent. I think a government leader should be considerably more cautious. An American leader should be even more so. The conclusion here is the uncomfortable "Progressivism is a process of thinking inconsistent with America and its history." I think that is true.
Her arrogance is another aspect. There are countless examples of her overbearing dismissive elitism from secret service interviews to her public committee appearances. All leaders are dangerous, arrogant ones are worse.
Next, the money. I begrudge no one financial success. Her's is ludicrous. The amassing of a large fortune while a "public servant" is common corruption; she is uncommonly corrupt. It is not simple inference; her famous cattle futures scam was classic money laundering. Classic. No one with any understanding of it believes otherwise. What is in question is, why do her supporters not dismiss her? How can anyone put up with it?
She is mendacious. Almost always. She says things that are untrue--provably untrue--and does so constantly. This happens so often one wonders if she is not unbalanced. I know all leaders lie but she is beyond the pale. Again, why do people put up with it?
Finally is her ambition. I prefer a leader whose ambition is fed by achievement, shaped by philosophy and tempered by knowledge. Her's is just naked demand for power--not just desire but demand. Her arrogance assumes her ascension. In her mind it is reasonable she decides, unasked, to modify, then design the changes in, a health care system that is 17% of the economy. That is revolutionary Third World--or divine right--thinking, not ours.
She is the basic modern politician, confident without reason, arrogant with little accomplishment, pretentious in her posing--a black hole for money, power and reputation.
I think there are several problems.
The first is a little unfair. Although Hillary is mainly in the public eye and discussion because of her husband, she is really not responsible for his errors. Still, since her success originates with him, she does get some of his downside. And his downside is big--and generic. No other adult male in the U.S. would have escaped the judicial system for what he did. Abuse of an employee--an intern--and then perjury in front of the grand jury--no guy would have survived that. While that is not her fault, it reeks of elite privilege, the same privilege I expect will protect her in the security violations which she unquestionably has done--violations again no average person would survive. This distinction between her and the rest of us mortals makes people like me very unhappy. The Europeans think this distinction routine but the Americans do not.
Next, her accomplishments are obscure to most observers. That does not necessarily disqualify her but it does not recommend her. Her one main achievement was her health care plan in the 90s when, for no discernible reason, she was made the head of a healthcare restructuring, a plan that would have dropped medical spending 38%. That would have been devastating to the industry and to the health of the country. Perhaps that is necessary--even crucial-- but no one elected her to do it. Why was she put in charge of it? See below.
Next, her errors have been big. As Secretary of State she presided over the Egyptian disaster and the Libyan fiasco and has declared them a success. Now these were not her creation, that we know. She was the agent of the Obama administration. And the policies were only Bush 2 in liberal drag; still they have been seriously bad mistakes. But she has claimed they were successful. Not recognizing that they were not is worse.
Next, she is a self-declared "progressive." What is that? This definition from George Will is not bad, written about free speech on campus: "If you believe, as progressives do, that human nature is not fixed, and hence is not a basis for understanding natural rights. And if you believe, as progressives do, that human beings are soft wax who receive their shape from the society that government shapes. And if you believe, as progressives do, that people receive their rights from the shaping government. And if you believe, as progressives do, that people are the sum of the social promptings they experience. Then it will seem sensible for government, including a university’s administration, to guarantee not freedom of speech but freedom from speech. From, that is, speech that might prompt its hearers to develop ideas inimical to progress, and might violate the universal entitlement to perpetual serenity." This definition may be too confining but it is generally true that the progressive political philosophy favors top-down imposition of policies created by self-appointed elites that are neither tried nor necessarily true and dismisses the idea of basic rights of citizens that limit government action, regardless of intent. I think a government leader should be considerably more cautious. An American leader should be even more so. The conclusion here is the uncomfortable "Progressivism is a process of thinking inconsistent with America and its history." I think that is true.
Her arrogance is another aspect. There are countless examples of her overbearing dismissive elitism from secret service interviews to her public committee appearances. All leaders are dangerous, arrogant ones are worse.
Next, the money. I begrudge no one financial success. Her's is ludicrous. The amassing of a large fortune while a "public servant" is common corruption; she is uncommonly corrupt. It is not simple inference; her famous cattle futures scam was classic money laundering. Classic. No one with any understanding of it believes otherwise. What is in question is, why do her supporters not dismiss her? How can anyone put up with it?
She is mendacious. Almost always. She says things that are untrue--provably untrue--and does so constantly. This happens so often one wonders if she is not unbalanced. I know all leaders lie but she is beyond the pale. Again, why do people put up with it?
Finally is her ambition. I prefer a leader whose ambition is fed by achievement, shaped by philosophy and tempered by knowledge. Her's is just naked demand for power--not just desire but demand. Her arrogance assumes her ascension. In her mind it is reasonable she decides, unasked, to modify, then design the changes in, a health care system that is 17% of the economy. That is revolutionary Third World--or divine right--thinking, not ours.
She is the basic modern politician, confident without reason, arrogant with little accomplishment, pretentious in her posing--a black hole for money, power and reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment