Out there in the über-liberal, anti-Hillary, Bernie Bro corner of the interwebs, the following challenge has been posed:
“Convince me to vote for Hillary Clinton without mentioning Donald Trump.”
As with so much else about the #NeverHillary crowd, it is unclear whether the above is a genuine, good-faith inquiry or just a snarky dig at Clinton’s supporters’ supposed moral bankruptcy.
It’s a rather bizarre question, in any case. If it’s meant as pure rhetoric—a way of pointing out how the leading justification for Clinton’s presidency is that it would prevent a Trump presidency—then we can take the point while also acknowledging its childish assumption that competing candidates could ever be judged independently of each other—as if choosing one option didn’t also mean rejecting the other.
However, if the question is meant seriously, then it’s just a stupid question.
Can liberals identify reasons to elect Clinton that don’t involve her not being Donald Trump, you ask? Are there really other liberals who think the answer is “no”?
There are dozens of ways to support Hillary’s candidacy without regard to her Republican opponent. Many of them are identical to those that led millions of future Bernie Bros to support Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012—and, naturally, many of the same traits also applied to Bernie Sanders during this year’s primaries. There are also reasons to endorse her that are sui generis, applicable to her and her alone.
Broadly speaking, Hillary is an enthusiastic subscriber to virtually the entire Democratic Party platform—thus, anyone in ideological agreement with Democratic principles is, by definition, in general alignment with Clinton on what we sometimes refer to as “the issues.”
For instance, she would clearly support and defend—and, if we’re lucky, expand and streamline—the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, overruling every last congressional attempt to kill it once and for all.
She would affirm the recently-established right of any two consenting adults to get married, have children and live happily ever after, while also ensuring those same people cannot be fired or otherwise discriminated against for unconstitutional reasons.
She would continue President Obama’s fight against global warming and his attempts to make the country more energy independent.
She would pledge solidarity with Muslims and other religious minorities against persecution by violent Christian extremists.
She would shape a Supreme Court that would vote in favor of a multitude of issues that liberals care passionately about—voting rights, women’s rights, transgender rights, you name it.
She would try to do something about gun control and—if the stars are aligned just right—maybe even succeed.
In addition to being the first female chief executive, she would appoint a record number of women to her cabinet, not to mention a boatload of ethnic and racial minorities spread throughout the executive branch, thereby inspiring countless young people to consider public service for the first time in their lives.
She would hold meetings and actually listen to what the other people have to say.
She would forge relationships with every last member of Congress, knowing that someday she might need their support for something important.
Long story short, she would essentially be a slightly more mature—but slightly less exciting—version of Barack Obama. In effect, she would represent Obama’s third term in office, for better and for worse. That’s the argument for electing her president. Take it or leave it.
Now, it’s true enough that Clinton herself has never explicitly said, “Vote for me, Obama’s third term!” However, it doesn’t require a great deal of reading between the lines to grasp the subtext of all of her major policy positions, which can be summed up as, “If you’ve enjoyed life under Obama, you’ll enjoy it under me.”
I realize this is an inherently uninspiring message—a tacit admission that things probably aren’t going to change very much over the next four-to-eight years—but it’s also admirably fresh and realistic—a means of subtly lowering our expectations to a level at which we might actually want to re-elect her four years hence.
Every president in history has needed to confront the gap between what he thinks he can accomplish and what he can actually accomplish, and Hillary Clinton stands apart from most previous candidates in her deep understanding of this fact. Among the many differences between her and Donald Trump—a man whom, you’ll note, I haven’t mentioned in quite some time—is that Trump apparently thinks a president can do literally anything he wants, while Clinton knows full well that the job is extraordinarily limiting and depends on a great deal of teamwork to get anything meaningful accomplished.
In 1961, John F. Kennedy intoned to the American people, “Let us begin.” When Lyndon Johnson succeeded Kennedy in November 1963—albeit under unusual circumstances—he said, “Let us continue.” That’s the dynamic between Obama and Clinton: They are so compatible in their basic worldview and value systems that we can expect an exceptionally smooth transition from one to the other (this time without an assassination in between).
I don’t know about you, but I have quite enjoyed the Obama administration. It has followed through on a plethora of progressive actions that were utterly lacking under George W. Bush, and I can say unequivocally that my own personal corner of America is infinitely better off now than it was eight years ago. If Obama were eligible to run for a third term, I would vote for him a third time.
But he can’t, so I’ll settle with Hillary, instead.
Many Republicans will be familiar with this sense of depleted enthusiasm, since they elected George H.W. Bush in 1988 by pretending he was Ronald Reagan, an incumbent who was term-limited after eight years of making many conservatives’ dreams come true. In the end, Bush proved a capable but ultimately lackluster follow-up act, keeping some promises while breaking others, and is today admired as much by liberals as by conservatives.
History could easily be in the process of repeating itself on the other side of the ideological spectrum, and that is roughly what we should expect. Hillary Clinton has drifted to the left on numerous issues as of late, but the intractability of Congress and Clinton’s own cautiousness will surely limit the reach of her administration’s most ambitious goals, resulting in exactly what her most clear-eyed advocates have promised: Modest, gradual progress through compromise—a variation of Selina Meyer’s campaign slogan in Veep, “Continuity with Change.”
Sounds pretty good to me.