Back in 2008 I supported Obama over Hillary, and I’ve never really regretted it, though I’ve often thought that had Hillary been elected she would have entered office with a huge majority in both houses and no illusions about the prospects of forging bi-partisan agreements. She would, I thought, have known better, given her own history and that of her husband. This year, faced with the dismal prospect of her presidency, I have at least comforted myself with the thought that she would enter the presidency with none of the delusions about bi-partisanship that took Obama six years to shed. So, in the vanishingly unlikely event that the Republican Party were in fact dragged down in Trump’s undertow, I was confident that Hillary would do the right thing: stomp on their prostrate forms and use the Democratic majority to go for those incremental changes she’s always talking about. But, maybe no. Is it possible that Hillary actually shares Obama’s delusions:
Writing for the NY Times this morning, Patrick Healy makes the point that “Should she win the presidency, Hillary Clinton would quickly try to find common ground with Republicans on an immigration overhaul and infrastructure spending, risking the wrath of liberals who would like nothing more than to twist the knife in a wounded opposition party… Deeply confident that she would perform better as the president than as a political candidate, Mrs. Clinton wants to pursue a whole new approach at the White House to try to break through years of partisan gridlock, according to a dozen campaign advisers and allies who described her goals and outlook. From policy goals and personnel to her instinct for patiently cultivating the enemy, Mrs. Clinton thinks she would be a better dealmaker than President Obama if she finds willing partners on the other side.”
Can she possibly believe the Republicans will do anything other than make every effort to stymie every increment? They have a proven track record; a record that has worked. Should they get trounced, a frustrated and ineffective Clinton presidency will be their ticket back to majority status in 2018. The only way the Democrats could hope to hold their newly won majority would be by twisting that knife and delivering something that improves people’s lives. That is precisely what the Republicans don’t want to see happen under a Democratic president, and should she hold herself hostage to bi-partisanship, she will accomplish nothing other than delivering the country back to the Republicans in 2018, just in time to set them up for even bigger gains in 2020, which, being a year ending in zero, is one in which Democrats traditionally take a dive so that Republicans can further gerrymander themselves into power.
I suppose we can take some cold comfort from the fact that the inept Democrats, behind the “leadership” of Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Chuck Shumer, are more interested in keeping Democratic progressive candidates out of Congress than putting Democrats into Congress. So, if Trump does indeed lose in a landslide, expect him to have coat tails as small as his hands. So we will be spared the sight of Clinton failing to twist the knife.
Post a Comment