DISCLAIMER: If you think people should stop analyzing the 2016 presidential campaign, then you shouldn’t read this essay. If you wonder why I’m still talking about it, it’s because those who control history control the future. How that contest is interpreted is incredibly important to the future of the Democratic Party, to the US and, therefore, to the world (since we’re still the preeminent empire). The conclusions drawn from it will go a long way toward determining the shape of American politics for years to come.
Let me be clear: I think Trump has been a fucking nightmare. But that doesn’t mean a Hillary Administration would’ve been much better. Her policies likely would’ve been right in line with the Dubyobama Era, probably worse than Obama, probably better than Dubya. There’s so little difference between them, who cares?
But, just like Obama, Hillary’s only job was to get elected. All she had to do was break the last glass ceiling, thereby ending the patriarchy. After that, there was nothing left for her to accomplish. She could’ve maintained the lion’s share of Dubya’s policies (like Obama did), and the Liberals and Mainstream Media would’ve gone along for the ride.
There was virtually no pressure on Obama from Libs to do anything. Absolving them of their racism was all they needed from him. Nine years later, they still think he did a bang-up job. Aside from keeping us mired in the Middle East, making sure the Paris climate accord contained ZERO commitments to reduce pollution and letting Wall Street get off scot-free, I suppose he did alright.
As ugly as the term is, I think it’s accurate to call Obama and Hillary tokens. They’re Establishment politicians who just happen to be, respectively, Black and female. They have no interest in changing the System. As far as they’re concerned, the System works great. It certainly worked for them.
They both claimed outsider status based on their race and gender. This strategy has been crucial to winning the White House since the end of the Cold War. Every president we’ve had since 1992 (Clinton, Dubya, Obama, Trump) has cast himself as an outsider who’s willing to take on the corruption and vested interests in DC. Despite their failure to keep that promise, they all won second terms (so far). But they faced uninspiring insiders (Dole, Kerry, Romney) in their re-election campaigns.
At the same time that Hillary was trying to show how tough women could be, she also exploited stereotypes associated with her gender identity. We wanted her to live up to the feminine ideal of a caring, nurturing person who would take care of us. But she had no intention of doing so. A cursory glance over her political career was enough to confirm that.
To her credit, Hillary was honest about what she was willing to deliver. She didn’t over-promise. But she had to wade into policy specifics, because she lacked the grand, transformative vision to inspire hope (like Bernie) or the oratorical skills to bewitch us with sweet nothings (like Obama). For some reason, she thought slightly lowering interest rates on student loans was the kind of exciting proposal that would electrify the electorate.
She accused Bernie of making unrealistic promises. He said he would expand the social safety net. She positioned herself as the realist, the pragmatist who could “get things done,” whereas Bernie was the idealist who didn’t understand how impractical his platform was. She kept telling us that we couldn’t have single-payer healthcare or free college.
That’s true. We can’t have those things… BUT ONLY IF YOU BELIEVE: (A) our military budget must be maintained at its current size (or bigger) and (B) the rich shouldn’t be taxed any more than they already are (or were before the GOP’s new tax code). Maybe she thinks expanding the social safety net is a good idea. But she wasn’t willing to cut the military budget or raise taxes on the rich to do it.
That’s hardly surprising given her record. She was a hawk on foreign policy and extremely friendly with Wall Street. She fit squarely in the middle of the neoliberal/neoconservative consensus. (FYI: “Neoliberal” doesn’t mean “new liberal” in the contemporary American sense. If you don’t know what it means, FUCKING LOOK IT UP!) She isn’t just part of the Establishment; she is the Establishment.
In order to vote for her with a clear conscience, Liberals had to trust that her words (and record) were just an act to get elected. Once in office, presumably, she would reveal her true self, the maternal archetype that lay within, someone who would take care of everyone and end all those nasty wars.
One Baby Boomer, White, middle-class woman even told me that Hillary’s political career had essentially been an act, not driven by calculation but by fear. In this person’s opinion, Hillary had been afraid to vote her conscience or speak her mind because she hadn’t yet gained enough authority. This is a pretty ridiculous hypothesis, considering Hillary was a U.S. Senator and the Secretary of State. Even if it were true, why would anyone vote for someone so meek?
Maybe the GOP-controlled Congress would’ve prevented any attempts to pass progressive legislation. But what does it say about Hillary that she wasn’t even willing to try?
Like her Democratic predecessors, she probably would’ve supported abortion rights, (some) environmental protections and other Liberal causes. But these amount to window dressing for most people, especially when both parties are in lock-step on the economic policies that are impoverishing so many of us, both fiscally and spiritually.
I have to admit: I’m really glad to see her go. It seems incredibly sad to me that so many women invested so much in her candidacy. What’s the point of getting your hands on the levers of power if you’re going to pull them the same way everyone before you did?
I’m also really hoping Elizabeth Warren gets elected in 2020, not just for the good she could do, but also to see the Hillary boosters try to explain how the country got so much less sexist in 4 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment