Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
Tue May 17, 2016, 03:30 PM May 2016

No, Hillary Clinton isn’t a Republican — but the resemblance is striking

Sunday, May 15, 2016 03:00 AM PST

No, Hillary Clinton isn’t a Republican — but the resemblance is striking

Clinton is a lot closer to Richard Nixon than Trump is, but she's really a Cold War liberal left behind by history

Andrew O'Hehir


...

Part of the problem is definitional and historical, and maybe even epistemological. What do we mean by “Republican”? A Republican where, and when? In broad strokes of politics and policy, Clinton is a lot closer to the worldview of Richard Nixon — the president who funded Planned Parenthood and proposed a national single-payer healthcare plan — than Donald Trump is. (Less charitably, we could mention Clinton’s recent reference to her good friend Henry Kissinger, one of the moments of 2016 she definitely wishes she could take back.) But the Richard Nixon who got elected in 1968 would not be a remotely viable presidential candidate in today’s GOP, and quite likely would not be a Republican at all.

So no, those things don’t make Hillary Clinton a Republican. Let’s say this all together: She’s a Democrat — a Democrat of a specific vintage and a particular type. At least in her 2016 incarnation, Clinton is an old-school Cold War liberal out of the Scoop Jackson Way-Back Machine, a believer in global American hegemony and engineered American prosperity. (I realize that’s a completely obscure reference to anyone under 45 or so. We’ll get back to it.) Many such Democrats became Republicans after 1980 — in several prominent cases, the Cold War liberals of the 1970s became the George W. Bush neocons of the 2000s — but Clinton didn’t exactly do that, and that’s not my point.

Clinton’s problem, or let’s say the crux of her many problems, is that the machine dropped her into the wrong decade. She has no Cold War to wage against a monolithic ideological nemesis, only an endless, borderless and profoundly unsatisfying conflict against a nebulous, Whack-a-Mole enemy. She faces a public ground down and demoralized by 15 years of pointless warfare and empty paranoia. Clinton’s version of liberalism — she has earned that label, in all fairness — has been rebranded and reconfigured so many times no one could possibly keep track of its current contents. Her politics are like Doctor Who’s flying phone booth: Until you open the door, you have no idea what’s inside.

Clinton has assumed for decades that her understanding of American politics and the global order, shaped by the Cold War liberalism of her youth, is rooted in unshakable reality and represents a finely calibrated blend of idealism and pragmatism. Whether or not she’s right about that is a matter of interpretation, but here’s a fact: She now finds herself at a moment of unexpected political turmoil, when all her underlying assumptions about reality are under attack. It remains likelier than not that she will win this election — but how confident do you really feel about that? Clinton has clearly been taken off guard by the rise of Bernie Sanders on her left and Donald Trump on her right (if that’s where he is at the moment), and is struggling to catch up to a sudden shift in the political tide that threatens to leave her stranded.

...

much, much more...
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/15/no_hillary_clinton_isnt_a_republican_but_the_resemblance_is_striking/

.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No, Hillary Clinton isn’t a Republican — but the resemblance is striking (Original Post) cui bono May 2016 OP
Actually she is a Republican. JRLeft May 2016 #1
Labels are funny things, and totally unnecessary. Avalux May 2016 #2
Her schmoozing with the likes of Kissinger should give every Democrat pause. AtomicKitten May 2016 #3
At this point, I don't care what label you give her. The thugs at the NV convention are a group to anotherproletariat May 2016 #4

Avalux

(35,015 posts)
2. Labels are funny things, and totally unnecessary.
Tue May 17, 2016, 04:07 PM
May 2016

Call her a Democrat or a Republican, whatever you want.

It's her actions that matter. When in decision-making positions, Hillary has shown us she has a heavy hand and a penchant for war.

That's all I need to know, nevermind the label.

 

anotherproletariat

(1,446 posts)
4. At this point, I don't care what label you give her. The thugs at the NV convention are a group to
Tue May 17, 2016, 04:58 PM
May 2016

be avoided. I'm glad they got it on tape (and are playing it over and over on cable and network news!).

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»No, Hillary Clinton isn’t...