Green Arrow
03-26-2016, 02:46 PM
Virtually every time the topic of Hillary Clinton comes up, I draw distinctions between her and Bernie Sanders and repeat my refusal to support her because she is not a progressive candidate, and the Democratic Party as a whole is not a progressive party. Conservatives understandably don't see the distinction and frequently ask me how it is that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party as a whole are not progressive, particularly when they sound the progressive bullhorn in speeches and campaigns.
First, let me get into what it means to be a progressive. Historically, being a progressive has never been tied to a single political party. At least, not until the creation of the Progressive Party from 1912-1918 and the rebirth of the Progressive Party from 1924-1934. Historical progressives included President Theodore Roosevelt (Republican), Robert M. "Fighting Bob" LaFollette Sr. (Republican), and Joseph Folk (Democrat).
Progressives don't always agree on the specifics, but in broad terms, this is what ideals progressives believe in (this is a broad list, not an exhaustive one):
Foreign Affairs:
1) Diplomacy is always the first option, war and sanctions are always the last option, to be used only if absolutely necessary. There is absolutely no reason why we can't use the immense power of the United States to be the world diplomat, rather than the world police.
2) If we're bound and determined to effect regime change in foreign nations, we should never replace one dictator with another dictator or radicals and we should never effect that regime change by invasions and occupations. What we should do is what Bernie Sanders has advocated in Syria: Forge an agreement between the rebel factions and Assad for a peaceful transition of power. Assad steps down and maintains his freedom to live his life as he chooses, and free and open elections are chosen to determine the new leader with zero influence from us outside negotiating deals and treaties.
3) Foreign aid should be humanitarian in nature, not military.
4) Defense spending needs to be slashed to more realistic levels.
5) We don't need over 900 bases in 200 countries to have a strong national defense.
6) We should assist organizations like The Hague in tracking down and apprehending war criminals. There need to be more convictions like Radovan Karadzic.
7) We should form agreements with third world countries like Mexico to help them improve their leadership and economy, to lift their people into a more first world standard of living. This will ultimately help our immigration problem in a very positive way.
Social Issues: (the Libertarians will like this one)
None of the government's business outside of "Go ahead, do your thing."
Economic Policy:
1) Workers deserve a fair wage that is at least matched to the cost of living, but $10 an hour is my preference.
2) Taxation should be progressive. If you make more, you pay more. Make less, pay less. Pretty simple concept. Everyone's gotta pay something, though.
3) Rebuild our social welfare programs. They should be a hand up, not a hand out. The point of social welfare is to maximize socio-economic mobility, which our welfare system now does not do.
4) As previously mentioned, slash defense spending. It's out of control and frankly, money doesn't make us safe, particularly when we are plunging into debt.
5) Single-payer healthcare is good. Medicare for all.
Now, with that basic foundation down, let's see how Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment match up, point for point.
Hillary and the DNC:
1) Diplomacy first, sure. But as soon as you hit a roadblock and can't get any further forward, denounce the rival on the other side of the table with comparisons to Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/hillary-clinton-says-vladimir-putins-crimea-occupation-echoes-hitler). That definitely will aid further diplomatic efforts, for sure.
2) Replacing dictators in foreign nations is great, let's do it with invasions and occupations. The thing that bugs me about Hillary's support for such policy here is that she claimed she regretted her vote in favor of the Iraq War (and blames it on being misled, despite the fact that 21 other Democratic senators voted no on the war, including Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) who served on the intelligence committee), yet she opposed every effort to end the war early and as SoS pushed many other very similar actions, such as overthrowing Assad in Syria and Gaddafi in Libya.
3) Foreign aid should be humanitarian in nature, but also military.
4) Sure, we can cut defense spending...but not too much. But we should also raise it.
5) Military bases are good and furthermore, let's send weapons to Ukraine (who we supported regime change for) for them to use against Russia, and let's also establish a no-fly zone in Syria. That won't antagonize Russia and further destroy any chance of diplomacy at all.
6) War criminals...meh.
7) Forget helping third world countries like Mexico improve their own countries, too much work. Let's just keep importing all of their workers at the cost of jobs for American workers.
Yeah, we're about the same on social issues.
Economic policy, though, now that's a kicker. Progressives absolutely agree that we should be transitioning away from fossil fuels, and I can see arguing that this would naturally put coal companies out of business.. but also taking the time to say you're going to put coal miners out of work? Hillary Clinton openly stated she would put American workers out of work just because they work for coal companies. That is absolutely unacceptable. Those miners are American workers just like anyone else and they do what they do because it's a huge employer in their states and they need to make a good living to support their families. I get you wanting to do away with coal as a fuel source but you should be talking about how you're going to give coal miners BETTER work rather than bragging you're going to put them OUT OF WORK altogether.
Hillary and the DNC as a whole do not support slashing defense spending, they don't support single-payer healthcare (despite the fact that she supported it in the 1990s). Not only that, but she attacked Bernie Sanders, the only progressive running, for not standing with her on healthcare in the 1990s despite the fact that public record shows he did and there are pictures of him standing behind her as she gave speeches in support of single-payer - but that's just another Clinton lie.
Perhaps the most important distinction that clearly shows Hillary is not even remotely progressive, however, is her cozying up to Wall Street. She promotes Monsanto, she promotes Walmart, she worked on their boards and puts their people on her staff, she made a heck of a lot of money giving speeches to Wall Street, and her biggest backers are on Wall Street. Progressives are not, and will never be, allied with Wall Street, but Wall Street has no greater ally than Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is singing the progressive tune like a canary - somewhat - this election cycle because she has to in order to win, NOT because she believes a word of it. Her record is the proof.
First, let me get into what it means to be a progressive. Historically, being a progressive has never been tied to a single political party. At least, not until the creation of the Progressive Party from 1912-1918 and the rebirth of the Progressive Party from 1924-1934. Historical progressives included President Theodore Roosevelt (Republican), Robert M. "Fighting Bob" LaFollette Sr. (Republican), and Joseph Folk (Democrat).
Progressives don't always agree on the specifics, but in broad terms, this is what ideals progressives believe in (this is a broad list, not an exhaustive one):
Foreign Affairs:
1) Diplomacy is always the first option, war and sanctions are always the last option, to be used only if absolutely necessary. There is absolutely no reason why we can't use the immense power of the United States to be the world diplomat, rather than the world police.
2) If we're bound and determined to effect regime change in foreign nations, we should never replace one dictator with another dictator or radicals and we should never effect that regime change by invasions and occupations. What we should do is what Bernie Sanders has advocated in Syria: Forge an agreement between the rebel factions and Assad for a peaceful transition of power. Assad steps down and maintains his freedom to live his life as he chooses, and free and open elections are chosen to determine the new leader with zero influence from us outside negotiating deals and treaties.
3) Foreign aid should be humanitarian in nature, not military.
4) Defense spending needs to be slashed to more realistic levels.
5) We don't need over 900 bases in 200 countries to have a strong national defense.
6) We should assist organizations like The Hague in tracking down and apprehending war criminals. There need to be more convictions like Radovan Karadzic.
7) We should form agreements with third world countries like Mexico to help them improve their leadership and economy, to lift their people into a more first world standard of living. This will ultimately help our immigration problem in a very positive way.
Social Issues: (the Libertarians will like this one)
None of the government's business outside of "Go ahead, do your thing."
Economic Policy:
1) Workers deserve a fair wage that is at least matched to the cost of living, but $10 an hour is my preference.
2) Taxation should be progressive. If you make more, you pay more. Make less, pay less. Pretty simple concept. Everyone's gotta pay something, though.
3) Rebuild our social welfare programs. They should be a hand up, not a hand out. The point of social welfare is to maximize socio-economic mobility, which our welfare system now does not do.
4) As previously mentioned, slash defense spending. It's out of control and frankly, money doesn't make us safe, particularly when we are plunging into debt.
5) Single-payer healthcare is good. Medicare for all.
Now, with that basic foundation down, let's see how Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment match up, point for point.
Hillary and the DNC:
1) Diplomacy first, sure. But as soon as you hit a roadblock and can't get any further forward, denounce the rival on the other side of the table with comparisons to Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/hillary-clinton-says-vladimir-putins-crimea-occupation-echoes-hitler). That definitely will aid further diplomatic efforts, for sure.
2) Replacing dictators in foreign nations is great, let's do it with invasions and occupations. The thing that bugs me about Hillary's support for such policy here is that she claimed she regretted her vote in favor of the Iraq War (and blames it on being misled, despite the fact that 21 other Democratic senators voted no on the war, including Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) who served on the intelligence committee), yet she opposed every effort to end the war early and as SoS pushed many other very similar actions, such as overthrowing Assad in Syria and Gaddafi in Libya.
3) Foreign aid should be humanitarian in nature, but also military.
4) Sure, we can cut defense spending...but not too much. But we should also raise it.
5) Military bases are good and furthermore, let's send weapons to Ukraine (who we supported regime change for) for them to use against Russia, and let's also establish a no-fly zone in Syria. That won't antagonize Russia and further destroy any chance of diplomacy at all.
6) War criminals...meh.
7) Forget helping third world countries like Mexico improve their own countries, too much work. Let's just keep importing all of their workers at the cost of jobs for American workers.
Yeah, we're about the same on social issues.
Economic policy, though, now that's a kicker. Progressives absolutely agree that we should be transitioning away from fossil fuels, and I can see arguing that this would naturally put coal companies out of business.. but also taking the time to say you're going to put coal miners out of work? Hillary Clinton openly stated she would put American workers out of work just because they work for coal companies. That is absolutely unacceptable. Those miners are American workers just like anyone else and they do what they do because it's a huge employer in their states and they need to make a good living to support their families. I get you wanting to do away with coal as a fuel source but you should be talking about how you're going to give coal miners BETTER work rather than bragging you're going to put them OUT OF WORK altogether.
Hillary and the DNC as a whole do not support slashing defense spending, they don't support single-payer healthcare (despite the fact that she supported it in the 1990s). Not only that, but she attacked Bernie Sanders, the only progressive running, for not standing with her on healthcare in the 1990s despite the fact that public record shows he did and there are pictures of him standing behind her as she gave speeches in support of single-payer - but that's just another Clinton lie.
Perhaps the most important distinction that clearly shows Hillary is not even remotely progressive, however, is her cozying up to Wall Street. She promotes Monsanto, she promotes Walmart, she worked on their boards and puts their people on her staff, she made a heck of a lot of money giving speeches to Wall Street, and her biggest backers are on Wall Street. Progressives are not, and will never be, allied with Wall Street, but Wall Street has no greater ally than Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is singing the progressive tune like a canary - somewhat - this election cycle because she has to in order to win, NOT because she believes a word of it. Her record is the proof.