I've discussed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign quite a bit with friends via social media. I'm not a Clinton supporter. I believe that Bernie Sanders more closely represents the views I hold and I plan to support him in the Democratic primary. I'm undecided what I may do in the general election if Clinton wins the nomination.
Several of my friends have told me that Sanders cannot possibly win the nomination, so I am just wasting my vote. "It's time," some have told me, for a woman to become president. She has "paid her dues" and "deserves" the presidency, others have said.
While I do agree that a female president is long overdue, my heart wishes Elizabeth Warren were leading the pack of nominees rather than Clinton. The other arguments are simply unconvincing to me.
Setting aside Sanders' electability for just a moment, I'd like to discuss in greater detail the larger issues with which I disagree with Clinton.
1. Citizens' United. Clinton has recently said she would make the overturning of the Citizens' United decision a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. I will first say that I actually think this is in direct response to Sanders' continued calls for substantial campaign finance reform. Clinton has a troubled history of campaign finance and while I believe she has not broken the law, it is unclear that her public policy positions have not been influenced by substantial private money that has come her way. Apart from this is the fact that Clinton has arguably gotten the biggest financial windfall from the Citizens' United decision. The super-PACs contributing to her campaign are the very reason that some view Sanders' candidacy as unviable: how could he win against Clinton's money?
2. Support of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Clinton has received over $3 million in speaking fees from banks who are investors in the controversial Keystone Pipeline, which environmentalists have universally decried. Her husband has told everyone it is time to "embrace" the pipeline that risks major environmental damage from oil spills and increased CO2 emissions. Given Clinton's identification as an environmental supporter, this is unconscionable.
3. Failure to call for serious Wall Street Reform. The 2008 financial bailout brought the specter of banks that were "too big to fail." It is a frightening proposition and an expensive one. The initial cost was $700 billion but some have estimated the true cost to be upward of $12.8 trillion in taxpayer money. Sanders continues to call for the break up and regulation of these financial institutions, but Clinton has been silent on this front. Why? Perhaps it is because the major contributors to Clinton's campaigns have been from that sector: Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Ernst and Young, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, et al. There is no evidence that Clinton supports serious reform or regulation of the financial sector, which leaves the American taxpayer vulnerable to big banks.
4. Failure to support an increase in the minimum wage. This week Clinton called for an increase in the minimum wage to $15, but only for workers in New York City by 2021. The income disparity in this country is alarming and while CEO salaries continue to skyrocket as our economy grows (and even when it doesn't), the minimum wage has become anything but a living wage. If adjusted for worker productivity and inflation since 1968, the wage would be $26. It is a myth that our economy couldn't handle the increase. (I won't address all the ins and outs of this issue here, except to say that our public subsidy of the Walton family alone would be enough for me to support the increase.)
5. Hawkish foreign policy. Clinton has indicated time and time again that she favors the military option in places where it is almost certain to fail, including Iran and Syria. The support of the Syrian forces opposed to Assad reads like a chapter from Reagan's foreign policy book, the one that gave us arms to Iran, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban. Our failure to learn from our continued mistakes is troubling, especially from someone who served as Secretary of State. While it is understood that the U.S. will have a continued role in world affairs, our interventionist policies ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend") have cost us thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and have not made us safer.
6. Her lukewarm civil liberties record. Clinton has been a supporter of the Patriot Act, and roundly condemned Edward Snowden for his exposure of the NSA. Wikileaks documents reveal that she supported the wiretapping of U.N. officials. She sponsored an amendment punishing the burning of the American flag and until very recently, was opposed to gay marriage. She has supported the suspension of habeas corpus, our extensive drone program that occasionally targets U.S. citizens, and anti-terrorism measures that have led to a curtailing of American civil liberties.
7. Support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Clinton called TPP the "gold standard" in trade agreements, even though it will almost certainly lead to the loss of American jobs and potentially compromise the sovereignty of U.S. courts. The trade agreement was negotiated in secret, without the review of the U.S. Congress. In addition, it provides no significant human rights or labor protections in signatory countries.
8. Opposition to single-payer healthcare. While I believe the Affordable Care Act is an important first step in providing reasonable healthcare for all American citizens, the U.S. needs a single-payer system, most likely run through Medicare. We already pay more in tax dollars for the healthcare system than most western countries, but without the benefit of universal coverage. Considering healthcare was Clinton's signature cause as first lady, it is troubling that she does not support a universal, single-payer system. I would opine that it is due to many of those contributors to Clinton's campaign, many of whom are major investors in the that industry. Amid cries that "It won't work!" we see single-payer systems working all around the globe.
I do not dislike Clinton. I think many of the attacks on her personally have been unfair. But she is not a "progressive," whatever that means. And she does not represent my interests on the issues that are most important to me and to my family.
