As Hillary Clinton has assumed the mantle of Democratic front-runner for the presidency, she has been receiving an extra amount of press attention. Her presence in the public eye means that she tends to polarize voters, with very strong supporters but equally strong detractors. In order to revamp her image, she has embarked on an ad campaign to humanize her frosty image. Many feel that she is too liberal and that her goals are unrealistic, even misguided, in the current environment. The majority of her initiatives also represent a substantial increase in government spending. According to her myspace (yes, she has a myspace): “I always loved history and got good grades, but I never did well at math.” That could explain her contradictory plans of expanding government programs and reducing spending. One of my main qualms with Hillary is her tendency to support idealistic, incredibly expensive programs that are either inefficient or unsuited for our society.
For instance, Hillary’s website lists ten reasons why we should support her and “help make history.” The first point that Hillary discusses, as well as one of her most important issues, is ending the war in Iraq. This would seem more sincere if Hillary had not voted to authorize the war in the first place; it’s hard to explain such a complete reversal on an issue that has dominated American life for years now. Also, her plan for ending the war is vague and unconvincing; she states, “As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home…” Instead of coming up with a solution on her own, she plans to pass the job to others. She paints the situation as easy to fix: simply leave immediately. If fixing Iraq were that simple, wouldn’t it have been done already? Hillary simplifies complicated issues to appeal to a general lack of support for the war, but her proposal is hardly insightful into the actual situation.
Also, her website states that she “would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo - to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.” The example of Kosovo is a strange one, especially considering the UN’s failure to keep the peace there. The massacre of thousands of Muslims in Srebrenica - under the UN’s direct watch, no less - illustrates that Hillary’s faith in the UN is misplaced. In Kosovo, Rwanda, and Darfur, the UN’s lack of ability to enforce peace undermines its already shaky authority. Trusting the United Nations with Iraq is hardly a guarantee that the situation will improve; in fact, one could argue that the UN often makes dangerous situations worse by glossing over hostilities with a veneer of peace.
Hillary’s opinion on Iraq is simply a political maneuver; when it was popular to support it, she did; now that it is unpopular, she firmly opposes it. Her plans, however, are not specific or realistic. She says that she wants “to restore America’s standing in the world and repair our alliances,” a clear reference to Iraq. But, dumping the Iraq problem on an incapable United Nations hardly seems like the easy fix she claims it to be. That just shifts ownership of the problem, instead of solving the underlying issues.
Another salient point about Hillary is her recent vote to encourage Bush to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. An Op-Ed writer in the New York Times describes the situation cleverly: “If you know the dingbat vice president is agitating for a conflict with Iran, if you know that Condi is chasing after Cheney with a butterfly net on Iran and Syria, if you know you can't believe anything this administration says, why vote to give them more backing on their dysfunctional Middle East policy?” Whether this vote was the wise thing to do or not, as it is certainly clear that Cheney is not afraid of using force, it seems that Hillary has placed herself in the same situation as when she voted to authorize war in Iraq. Her choice to support Cheney is definitely an odd one, and is most likely a calculated political move. Will she show the same aggression towards Iran when the responsibility for the consequences is hers alone?
Another central aim of Hillary’s presidency would be “to achieve universal, affordable health care.” Replacing privatized insurance with a socialized system will be atrociously expensive and most likely wouldn’t work in the American economy. According to her website, “Nobody has worked harder or longer to improve health care than Hillary Clinton.” This is an interesting topic to focus on, considering how she botched her husband’s health care plan in 1994.
Hillary also wants “to provide world-class education, from universal pre-kindergarten to universal college for all,” an expensive and hugely involved endeavor. Considering the effects of No Child Left Behind, which most would argue has not been a success, I am hesitant to entrust our government with even more responsibility for education.
Ironically, a following goal is “to return to fiscal responsibility, move back toward a balanced budget, and safeguard Social Security and Medicare for future generations.” Her program of increasing government control simply isn’t going to add up to a balanced budget, and is hardly what I would consider fiscal responsibility. Hillary’s goals would expand government to unforeseen proportions. Do we really want her revamping the entire economy and expanding dubiously effective government control? I don’t think so.
Finally, Hillary also declares that the wants “to restore competence and end cronyism in government.” This seems in conflict with her desire to expand government substantially; with more people and more money flowing into an expanded bureaucracy, the potential for abuse is logically greater, not less. Hillary wants “to build a more tolerant, united America, working to achieve big goals again.” I am not sure I want Hillary handling “big goals,” especially when all of her solutions involve a “big government” that interferes with freedom loving American families.
Comments