The author writes: "As Bernie Sanders has noted, it is not her
experience which is weak, it is her
judgment."
Frankly, I disagree with Sanders. Clinton's judgement is exactly in
line with her "Handlers", those who are paying her way.
We make decisions based upon our experiences and the level of our
intelligence. Clinton is definitely an intelligent person, drawing
her conclusions from her Life Experiences, and basing her Judgement
upon them. My own action and my own judgement
is grounded in many experiences and influences. Not in the least is
my father, my mother and the sort of friends they kept. Hillary
Clinton is not so removed from such influences, either. What's that
old saying? You're known by the company you keep?
Still, there is much to learn in this article.
Carl Jarvis
My problem with Hillary
The New York primary comes next Tuesday and I realize it is past time for
me
to toss in my two cents worth. I will, later, tackle the issue of Bernie
Sanders' campaign. I realize that while the American Left is shattered, and
there are no definitive spokespeople, as someone who was twice the chair of
the Socialist Party, and twice it's Presidential candidate, I should take
up
the question of the Sanders' campaign, and will do so, but not tonight.
Tonight I want to outline my serious problems with Hillary Clinton, and
explain why, in the event she wins the Democratic Party's nomination, I
will
vote for Jill Stein of the Greens rather than Hillary Clinton. That is not
an easy decision, since I think it imperative that the Republicans not take
the White House. (And I know that in New York State it is not a reckless
position, since New York is one of the states which is virtually certain to
vote Democratic, as Texas is virtually certain to vote Republican, so that
"maverick votes" don't really risk things).
I do not hold Hillary's support for Goldwater and the Republicans. when she
was very young. against her. After all, at her age I was in the Prohibition
Party! It is what happened to Clinton and where she has gone in her later
years that needs to be examined
Part of me feels genuinely sorry for Hillary. Put it down to my puritanical
streak (something which, as an aging homosexual, I don't really have a
right
to!) but I felt that was it in poor taste for Bill Clinton to have his cock
sucked in the Oval Office by an intern (somehow a mistress would be easier
to take - Bill's actions were simply gross). I believe this event must have
been utterly shattering for Hillary and for Chelsea. The humiliation was
surely much worse than the earlier reports of his sexual liaisons with
women
in his home state. It was not to Hillary's credit that she tended to shift
the blame to the women - a most dubious kind of feminism.
But let's leave her personal humiliations aside, though I think they left
her hardened. It has been her political record which leaves me unable to
cast a vote for her. She moves in a crowd of wealth and celebrity, which
not
only has included Donald Trump, but vastly worse, includes, to this day,
Henry Kissinger. So much time has passed since the end of the Vietnam War -
41 years - that new generations do not realize that thousands of young
Americans died in Vietnam, and tens of thousands of Vietnamese and
Cambodians, because of the foreign policy pursued by Richard Nixon, whose
closest adviser was Henry Kissinger. If the term "war criminal" has
meaning,
it must be applied to Kissinger. (Nor was the Indochina War his only crime
-
he played a key role in the overthrow of the elected government of Salvador
Allende, In Chile. An overthrow which saw the bloody suppression of
Allende's supporters).
After the end of World War II the allies, at the Nuremberg Tribunal,
sentenced a number of Nazi leaders to death by hanging. If we look back at
Vietnam, and realize that an estimated three million Vietnamese died in
that
war, where, on that scale, would we place the possible punishment of
Kissinger?
Hillary Clinton is fundamentally a war candidate. When Bush launched the
Iraq War (now, also, so distant in time we forget how sharp was the debate
before the dreadful "shock and awe" which opened that war, and destroyed a
nation) it was not only simply Bernie Sanders who spoke against it - so did
Barack Obama. So did the Pope. Literally millions of people marched for
peace in the streets of London, Paris, Tokyo. The UN inspectors on the
scene
had reported at that time that they had found no evidence of weapons of
mass
destruction.
The opposition to that war did not spring from any affection for Saddam. I
had been in Iraq just before the war began, on a delegation from the
Fellowship of Reconciliation, and felt the pressure of the Saddam
dictatorship, with huge posters of him all over the city. No, it was not an
opposition built on affection for Saddam Hussein, but on a belief the war
would not solve the problems.
We - those of us in total opposition to Bush - were right. Hillary Clinton
was wrong, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. Now she admits her vote
was
"a mistake" but there is no sense of guilt in her voice. No awareness that
thousands upon thousands of young Americans - and tens upon tens of
thousands of Iraqis died in that war. She counts on voters too young to
remember how widespread was the opposition to that war. How is it possible
for her to forget the images of torture from Abu Ghraib?
When there was unrest in Libya, she supported - proudly, eager to take
credit for it - the US policy of helping overthrow Gadaffi. As Bernie
Sanders has noted, it is not her experience which is weak, it is her
judgment. The horrors of the Iraq War did not leave her hesitant about
Libya, nor did the disaster of Libya lead her to support negotiating the
Syrian crisis - it was the prolonged, patient work of John Kerry which has
given us, at least for the moment, a break in the fighting. Perhaps because
Kerry had actually seen a war from the front line, not from the comfort of
an office in Washington DC.
Of the candidates for President, Trump is so fascinating he merits an
article of his own. Ted Cruz is a man looking squarely toward the past and
would lead us there. Hillary is the candidate of the establishment, who
seeks to manage what is, rather than to imagine what might be. Only Bernie
Sanders points us to the future. And while Bernie is not without error, he
can be trusted, even by his opponents, while Hillary is trusted by no one.
Bernie has always been for gay rights - Hillary waited until the coast was
clear before taking a position, Along with her husband, she was happy with
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and with opposing gay marriage.
I know - I've been in politics a long time - that the Establishment will
support Hillary. She poses no threat. The trade union leadership (and not
even all of them) supports Hillary, but the rank and file supports Bernie.
Hillary's boast is that she can get things done, and Bernie can't. I put it
to you that this is a very risky proposition. For whatever reason, the GOP
hates Hillary, with a much greater venom than it hates Obama. The idea that
once elected she can settle down and negotiate with the GOP is an illusion.
I put it to you that, if Bernie Sanders is elected, that will have
reflected
such a true shift in the body politic that the GOP will realize it has to
go
along at least part of the way.
Hillary will provide decent nominees for the Supreme Court, she will
support
Social Security and health care, but she will not take on the
pharmaceutical
industry which makes health care so expensive. She will not expand the
health care program to cover the millions not covered now. On most domestic
issues she will be OK - no more, but no less. And that is not good enough.
When Bernie suggests medical care for all, tuition free public colleges,
(not a new idea, when I went to UCLA in the 1950's there was no tuition),
Hillary explains we can't afford it. We live in a nation where there is
enormous wealth in the hands of a tiny minority - and Hillary will not take
a single step toward the taxation policies that would begin the
redistribution of that vast wealth.
She has not - thus far not even tried - to explain why the US cannot afford
the things which in Denmark, or Holland, or Sweden, or Finland, are taken
for granted. When Bernie says we need a political revolution he is on
target
- and that is what Hillary will do her best to avoid.
However on foreign policy she will opt for guns. Look at her record in the
tiny country of Honduras, imagine her possible actions in Ukraine. And if
you followed her speech to AIPAC, where she covered every possible base,
including a pledge for an early meeting with Netanyahu, you can see that
she is in touch with the past, not the future. AIPAC represents that wing
of
the Jewish community which has substituted total support for Israeli
policies for the much deeper and more important part of the Jewish
community
which remembers the Judaic tradition as one of justice, not oppression.
There are a great many young Jews, not "self-hating", and not indifferent
to
the problems of Israel, who seek a new relationship with Israel and the
Palestinians. Hillary not only doesn't speak for them, she doesn't even
know
they exist. Besides, the AIPAC folks include billionaires who will fund her
campaign - the young Jewish folks don't have that kind of money, just
integrityl
The world is changing, but Hillary has not changed. It would be wonderful
to
have a woman as President, but not this woman. Not a woman who accepts
hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wall Street for her speeches - but
will not release those speeches to the public.
The machinery of Establishment will break its back to get Hillary the
nomination. The Chair of the DNC made sure, when the first debates were
scheduled, that they would be few, and mainly at times when people would be
following a sports event. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a good example of the
establishment which Hillary represents. The establishment fears the kind
of
change Bernie Sanders is urging - and which is possible. The
military-industrial complex fears the cuts in their budgets.
When I see Hillary on TV, I remember the war dead. I remember her friend,
Henry Kissinger. I remember the speeches made to Wall Street but kept
secret
from us. I cannot in conscience vote for her if she wins the nomination. I
do not urge others to follow my lead. It is a personal one, that the
dynasties of Bush and Clinton need to end. Those who represent them need to
mourn the past. The rest of us need to build the future.
(Edgeleft is an occasional essay by David McReynolds, who worked for War
Resisters League for nearly forty years, was chair of War Resisters
International, and active in socialist politics all his life. He is retired
and lives on the Lower East Side with his talkative cat. He can be reached
at: davidmcreynolds7@xxxxxxxxx)
