There is something about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy that brings out the rage in some people, like tension brings out the Hulk. And, like the Hulk, when these people get enraged, they get stupid.
Two of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard in politics are currently being made in connection with Hillary.
The stupidest argument is the “alternating Bush-Clinton dynasties” argument, which says that we shouldn’t elect Hillary Clinton because that would mean either 24 or 28 years with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House.
Why this should matter is never explained, and I suspect it is not explained because its nonsensical on its face. The administrations of the Bushes, senior and junior, and that of William Clinton represented different political parties, traditions and methods. Bill Clinton was no more a continuation of Poppy Bush’s reign than W’s was of the Teflon President’s. If you were making the argument that the two came from the same family, party or even political approach, cooperating in an attempt to pervert the institutions of democracy, or resulting in declining effectiveness, or increasing scandal and corruption, then the argument makes sense. But that is not the case here.
Clinton, a work-aholic, studious and thoughtful, if dysfunctional man, presided over a stellar economy (fueled by an internet stock bubble and fraudulent stock-option profiteering accounting practices at public companies), declining unemployment, and democratic “big” government proposals, like NAFTA and universal healthcare (with varying degrees of success). He also presided over multiple scandals (Whitewater, Lewinsky), distracting legal disputes (Paula Jones suit) and front page peace initiatives (Northern Ireland and Israel).
Leaving aside the first Bush presidency because it was only four years long, Bush, a lazy, uncurious and judgmental, if dysfunctional man, presided over a tanking economy (fueled by an real estate bubble and fraudulent accounting practices by war-profiteering private contractors), escalating unemployment, and undemocratic “big” government proposals, like pulling out of treaties and privatizing social security (with varying degrees of success). He also presided over multiple scandals (Abu Graib, Alberto Gonzales), distracting legal disputes (Scooter Libby suit) and front page peace initiatives (Syria and Israel).
It is clear that neither of these administrations needed the continuity of following the other to make mistakes, and that the country had no problem switching to a diametrically different leader when the time came. It is unclear how electing Bush after Clinton represents a preference for a dynasty, or electing Hillary after W for that matter.
It would have made far more sense to raise this argument about W, who represented not a continuation of his father’s four-year reign, but arguably a continuation of the 12 year Reagan term that Poppy was a part of. At the time that W. was running, something like 1 in 9 Americans was already being governed by a Bush at the state level. There is a far clearer case to be made for a Bush dynasty than for that of the Clintons (unless Chelsea starts making trips to New Hampshire and Iowa next year).
In addition, if you are worried about continuity of a political dynasty, then it makes more sense to argue against the common practice of having the Vice President of a two-term President become the presumptive nominee of the party.
That last leads me to the second stupidest argument ever made about Hillary, which is that she has no experience to be President, because she was First Lady, not President, and she’s never run anything on her own.
For starters, she is a U.S. Congressperson (a seat she was all but assured of winning, when after being opposed by the ever-so-popular Giuliani, he withdrew from the race with a medical excuse known as tail between legs), which is the same “experience” brought to the table by McCain, Obama, Thompson, Edwards, Gravel and Kucinich, to name a few.
Also in the race, with no more experience at holding a national executive office than the handful of legislative office-holders, are a couple of governors (Romney, Huckabee, Richardson and a couple of ex-mayors (Kucinich and Giuliani).
Throw in all the “experience” that I think makes a person uniquely unqualified to be President—that of the military, and religious training (McCain, Romney, Huckabee). Military and religious training require you to subdue critical thinking faculties to obedience—producing excellent followers, but very few leaders.
What should we make of this argument that a spouse does not obtain training by watching? I think the same exact argument can be made for the Vice President. This is a job that can be as ceremonial and uninvolved as the President chooses it to be—like that of First Lady.
I would argue that “watch me” experience can count for a lot. We used to require all of our trade training to be of the “watch me” variety in the form of apprenticeships. Who would you rather have cutting your diamonds: a stone-cutter, a wood-cutter or the apprentice who spends all day watching the diamond cutter?
If you accept that a highly involved political spouse can be learning the ropes just as a Vice President does, then Hillary, along with having been a governor’s spouse, a legislator and a member of the Board of Directors of a major corporation, is the only candidate in the race who does have White House experience. All this should be turning the other candidates green with envy, instead of being green and stupid like the Hulk.
