Hillary in 2016? Who Cares!

Hillary ClintonI’ve spent a lot of time over the last many years wondering, “Would Hillary Clinton make such a bad president?” I’ve thought that because, contrary to what most liberals think, her husband was a terrible president. I know, I know: unemployment was really low. That was great! But that wasn’t him. That was Alan Greenspan who was so crazy that he didn’t accept the idea that 5% unemployment was full employment. Yes, Greenspan was terrible for many other things. But in terms of Clinton’s economic miracle, it was all Greenspan.

What Clinton the Male was responsible for was greatly increasing income inequality, although we didn’t really see it until the tech market bubble burst. There are two big things he did. First, he pursued a strong dollar policy. What that did was push manufacturing jobs outside the United States. Sure, it’s nice to be able to buy cheap imported products. But it’s better to have a decent job. And the second thing that Clinton did was end welfare as we knew it. That too didn’t have an effect right away. It didn’t matter as long as there were jobs a plenty, that our entire federal government became a collective Scrooge, “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?!”

The greatest thing that Clinton the Male ever did was not being Bush the Younger. There’s a reason why Republicans today think he’s just great: he was a conservative. He was the model New Democrat and that’s worse than an Old Republican. And our modern political system is so screwed up that none of his terrible domestic policies (to say nothing of his foreign policies) caused him any harm. But getting fellatio from an intern, that’s something the people care about!

Elizabeth WarrenSo the question remains. Would Clinton the Female be a good president? Would she perhaps not be just another New Democrat as her two Democratic predecessors? Oh, you see, I can be an optimist at times. But in this case, I find it hard to think that she would break the mold. In addition to her simply being who we all know she is, the rich people who will fund her election are exactly the same people who funded the presidencies of Obama the Hopeful and Clinton the Male. As a group, they all care about what I care about. And on those issues that don’t cost the rich any money, you can depend upon them to do something. Same sex marriage (now that it’s popular): yes! Access to birth control that has only become controversial in the last five years: yes! Social Security for people over 68 years old: yes! How proud we liberals are of our social beliefs!

I will leave aside foreign policy, because we all know that whoever is president is going to continue to murder innocent people all over the world in the name of some kind of rubbish American presidents always spout. But economic issues: they are the crux of the matter. And that’s where we got a nice little introduction of the bold economic plan that Clinton the Female has in store for us, Hillary Clinton Calls on Business to Help Close Income Inequality Gap.

According to the article:

The potential 2016 Democratic presidential contender said she is working to “encourage more companies to come off the sidelines and frankly, for some to use some of that cash that is sitting there waiting to be deployed,” in a speech at the New America Foundation 2014 Conference.

You know what this sounds like? Herbert Hoover! Although you can find this documented many places, Steven Horwitz wrote in Hoover’s Economic Policies:

On wages, Hoover revived the business-government conferences of his time at the Department of Commerce by summoning major business leaders to the White House several times that fall. He asked them to pledge not to reduce wages in the face of rising unemployment.

And they did it! They kept wages high. For the few employees who they didn’t fire, their wages stayed high! See how effective it is to depend upon the good intentions of the business community?

I’ve come to the conclusion that we would be better off with a failed Elizabeth Warren campaign than a successful Clinton the Female campaign. At least a Warren campaign would remind the people of the United States that there are more policy options than “give all the money to the rich” and “give almost all the money to the rich.” This country is badly in need of having its Overton Window expanded. Over the last forty years, we’ve seen the window move to the right, but not expand at all. And that means that “left” now means cutting aid to the poor while “right” means ending aid to the poor and giving ever more aid to the rich. That’s not much of a choice and the American people know it.

We deserve better. And thus far, we are not seeing anything better from Clinton the Female.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Frank Moraes. Bookmark the permalink.

About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

0 thoughts on “Hillary in 2016? Who Cares!

  1. @JMF – I don’t know if I would go that far, but he was great. So many people have done the role!

    I don’t really like the story though. It needs an epilogue where over time he goes back to his old ways. Because that’s what always happens. Although depending upon how you read it, it’s still pretty realistic. He cares about Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim, but he’ll go on screwing the rest of the world. It’s an analogy of Christians who behave good so they aren’t tortured in the afterlife.

  2. There is a very odd Dickens story, "The Bells," that I read a few years ago. In it, a poor person, in a moment of weakness, thinks he deserves his rotten luck, and magic Christmas stuff happens making horrible things occur. The poor person repents at the end and realizes "I should NEVER blame myself or anybody else for poverty" or some such.

    Dickens could lay it on pretty thick, and one result of that is rich assholes enjoy stuff like "A Christmas Carol." J.P. Morgan owned a handwritten draft!

    I dunno who was ever better than Sim in the part; he positively gleams when he changes (and the use of the ancient song "Barbara Ellen" on the soundtrack makes me cry.) There was a made-for-TV one I remember with George C. Scott that sticks in my head, because Scott’s Scrooge seemed pretty amused by being a dick. The way the story is laid out, it’s almost as though Scrooge simply changes because before, he was Unhappy Inside. (It’s the first Oprah-club book; find your inner greatness!) So I s’pose rich assholes who aren’t particularly unhappy can dig the story; they ain’t like that poor bastard.

  3. @JMF – That is the problem with Scott’s version: it’s too accurate. The rich really do love being jerks. That’s why I hate [i]The Shark Tank[/i] so much. Those people are so full of themselves. The very first rule of any reasonable theology is that the universe is unfair. We tend to think of unfairness as being a child with leukemia. But that is so minor compared to the injustice of people who have it all and live their whole lives thinking they deserve it.

    The essence of [i]A Christmas Carol[i] is that there are two worlds and doing well in this one does not mean you will do well in the next. In the real world, most everyone is pretty sure this is it. The rich are mostly a bunch of psychopaths. And in a fundamental sense, our society is psychopathic. The American empire richly deserves the fall it is going through.

    Clearly, I’m thinking happy thoughts today.

  4. Well, think better thoughts! Just kidding. I love this country because I live here, yet sometimes I also want the empire to fall. And then I think about who will suffer the most when it does. We can’t guillotine the Kochs, can we? They’ll do fine, no matter what.

    I don’t know a lot about rich people, beyond random sample sizes. I do follow the political policies pursued by certain rich people, which are definitely psychopathic. I watched a documentary recently about old Indonesian gangsters who fondly remembered killing activists, and they kept mentioning how "gangsters are free men . . .everybody wants to be a gangster."

    It struck me that a lot of rich people in America say the same thing; they are just ballsy enough to be the Alpha Dogs everyone else wants to be, but are too cowardly. Well, I don’t want to rob people. I would like more money, but I don’t want to hurt anyone else to get it. To be an employee of the super-rich is probably just a sort of self-delusion (my company is a good company, my immediate supervisor is a nice person, etc.) And we all have self-delusions. To be a prime mover of the super-rich crowd, though . . . yeah, that’s close to Green River Killer level of crazy.

  5. @JMF – Read my recent "Heroes for a Debased Culture" to get an idea of my current frame of mind. It seems that as time goes on I get more and more radical. And it comes more out of theological thinking than my political thinking. Ayn Rand kind of had it right. Given her absolutely pathetic theology, the society we have makes a certain amount of sense. But people in this country espouse theologies that are totally at odds with the way they live their lives. Paul Ryan’s combination of Ayn Rand and Catholicism is just crazy. He should be put away somewhere safe where he can’t hurt himself or anyone else.

    I’m probably going to write an article this evening about the two happiest moments of my life. They both involved being alone. But they required my personal connections to others. And I think I have a good idea what heaven would be like.

Leave a Reply