Some Thoughts About the Real Hillary - the first of many reviews.

39 share

Our goal is 40

Editor's notes:  Understand that this editor  (that would be me) does not endorse Hillary for President.  But,  neither do I believe that she should be type-cast along with our first Marxist/Utopian President.  She is "big government" to be sure,  and,  owns a robust respect for the United Nations.  She is anti-gun ownership as near as I can tell,  pro-abortion,  and pro-ObamaCare.   

On the other hand,  however,  she is not an Alinsky-ite,  is not into social reform via defacto-dictatorship,  appears to have a full-blown respect for the rule of law,  is pro-Israe, and,  has never supported "Occupy" as a force of chaotic domestic change.  It is doubtful that she would ever utilize the services of a openingly Marxist adviser,  as has Obama,  and is much more hawkish than Obama.  In my opinion,  we will never see the real Hillary,  unless and until she becomes President and is,  therefore,  free to chart her own course.  Democrat Party politics do not allow open disagreement with whoever is at the top,  in that party.  The question is:  Do we want to take a chance on electing someone we do not [really] know?  That will be an important question in the coming months.  

What we have in B Obama is a man who is the center of his own universe,  unwilling to compromise or work with an opposition party;  a slow learner, and, a man with no close political friends (outside his own cabinet) or within the international community.  In other words,  a man who is incapable of leadership.  

Hillary has her failings,  but stupidity and  sheer incompetence do not appear to be issues that should concern us most about her.  In these venues,  she separates herself from both of the Obama's.   His failed candidacy just may have made her election more of a possibility than six years ago.   

Hillary Reviewed

By Walter Russell Mead May 30

Walter Russell Mead is the James Clarke Chace professor of foreign affairs at Bard College and editor at large of the American Interest. He is the author of “Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.”

Clinton is what I call a Hamiltonian, believing that America’s interests are best served by an adaptation of traditional British strategies: sea power, commercial expansion and a focus on strategic theaters in world politics. She thinks that Asia is where America’s interests are most vitally engaged for the long term, and she consistently argued for a greater focus on the region in our foreign policy. The pursuit of a balance of power in Asia will naturally focus on China, but Clinton is a realist who believes that the United States and China can reach a genuine accommodation based on economic interests and a common desire to avoid war. (She also believes that technology industries are the engines of economic growth and a chief field of competition among states, as in the battle between the American and Chinese visions of Internet governance.)

Traditional Anglo-American geopolitical thought is not Clinton’s only inheritance from the past. She also shares the optimism about America found in the Methodist religious tradition in which she grew up. The spirit of the 19th-century missionaries who fanned out across the world to promote development, human rights, and social and economic reform lives in her and shapes her basic thoughts about what American power is for. For some realists, “global meliorism” — the belief that U.S. foreign policy can and should try to make a better world — is a dirty word. For Clinton, it is a bedrock conviction. “We are the force for progress, prosperity and peace,” she said during a remarkable speechat the Council on Foreign Relations in early 2013.

This combination makes Clinton an American exceptionalist: She believes that the United States has been called to a unique role in leading the world, and that the American state and the American people, at home and abroad, can be powerful instruments for good.