Following last week’s Democratic debate, political commentators overwhelmingly declared former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the winner. But no amount of polished talking points can alleviate Clinton’s core problem: voters do not view her as trustworthy — nor should they. Moderator Anderson Cooper immediately challenged Clinton on this very issue. Noting several policies on which she has changed her views, he asked her a simple question: “Will you say anything to get elected?” No doubt prepped for such a situation, Clinton replied: “Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but… I do absorb new information.” While many politicians could explain away certain minor policy shifts with such an answer, for Clinton to claim she is “very consistent” is laughable. In this election cycle alone Clinton has demonstrated she will say anything to get elected, and that her core values and principles stem more from public opinion polls than serious conviction. At a time when trust in government nears historic lows, the American people need a president who can restore the federal government’s credibility. A politician like Clinton is no such candidate.
In fairness to Clinton, anyone involved in politics long enough will inevitably shift positions on a few issues. Clinton is far from the first person to oppose same-sex marriage before ultimately supporting it, and we should not castigate her for that, or for now denouncing the tough-on-crime measures she supported as First Lady. Many Americans similarly adopted a more favorable view of same-sex marriage over the last decade, and criminal justice reform now enjoys wide bipartisan support. However, even if we accept these opinion shifts as benign examples of a genuine change of heart, there are far more issues where Clinton has undoubtedly subordinated principle to political expediency.
Her history with the Keystone pipeline is an illuminating example. While leading the State Department, which was tasked with reviewing the project, Clinton expressed her inclination to support the pipeline’s construction. But as a candidate in July, she initially refused to state her position at all, even hinting she might not reveal her opinion until elected president. But amid concerns that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ surge was poaching her more left wing supporters, Clinton abruptly announced her opposition to the pipeline in September. That any presidential frontrunner feels entitled enough to punt on an issue as important to her base and as clear-cut as Keystone speaks volumes to the cynicism grasping American politics; it scarcely seems to matter that Clinton announced her opposition simply in order to placate the environmentalist wing of the Democratic Party. Indeed, when announcing her reversal Clinton expressed few qualms with the merits of the pipeline itself, instead merely telling her supporters that continued questioning about her views on Keystone “interferes with our ability to move forward to deal with all the other issues.”
Such political calculations seem to comprise Clinton’s DNA. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recalls in his memoir that Clinton openly admitted her opposition to the “surge” in Iraq was politically motivated, as she sought to avoid alienating the anti-war left ahead of her primary battle with then-Senator Barack Obama in 2007. Again, the merits of the policy were subordinated to shoring up primary support. More recently, Clinton seemingly shifted overnight regarding whether she needed to apologize for her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State. Similar to the saga surrounding Keystone, Clinton initially refused to apologize during a Friday interview with NBC; by Tuesday, Clinton had changed her mind. On Wednesday, it was revealed that her sudden reversal came only after a weekend focus group of Democrats and Independents reacted negatively to her Friday rhetoric.
Most damaging to her credibility, however, is her inexplicable opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. As Secretary of State, Clinton played a large role in making this agreement possible and has praised it a whopping 45 times, even calling it the “gold standard” of trade agreements. But with Sanders eroding her base of support and liberal grassroots activists threatening Democrats who support Obama’s trade deal, Clinton must lurch left to avoid an even bigger upset than her primary defeat in 2008. Ostensibly, of course, Clinton offered a different reason: “I did say, when I was Secretary of State, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard.” Except as secretary, she said it was the gold standard, she didn’t say she hoped it would be the gold standard. Clinton added in her attempted defense: “It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards.” Ignoring the fact that the deal is not even public yet, and White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest is publicly doubting Clinton’s claim that she has seen any new details, how are we to know what her standards are, exactly? Hold on, the focus group data will be back shortly.
Of course, Clinton is still the predicted Democratic nominee, and I doubt many liberals will vote Republican simply because their candidate is a disingenuous chameleon known to adopt whatever views will secure enough votes to keep her coronation on track. Support for her policy proposals, however contrived, is understandable; but faith that they’ll remain her policy proposals if the political winds turn is not. It is a sad reflection on American democracy that each party’s current frontrunners appear to be immune to overwhelming evidence showing they are unmoored from any principles besides their own self-interest. A popular quote often (falsely) attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville — “In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve” — rings especially true in this year’s election cycle. We may hope for a more trustworthy government and more accountable politicians, but perhaps a society that appears set to nominate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump for the highest office of the land deserves neither.
Matt Winesett is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.winesett@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | November 9, 2024The University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
