EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
Popular content
Today's Top News
Beware of Democrats Bearing Compromise
Pundits have asserted time and again that the Democratic candidates' positions on issues do not diverge.
They do. The differences are sparse, but provide a unique window into Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's respective governing styles unfettered by media lights. For lack of space, I provide only a few examples.
The first is the United States' use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. In 2006, the Senate considered Amendment 4882, which prohibited the use of "cluster munition" near "any concentrated population of civilians." Cluster bombs contain many little "bomblets" which are designed to explode individually on impact but often do not, leaving what are in effect tiny mines littering streets, which have resulted in over 13,000 unnecessary civilian casualties to date.
Yet, on the measure to prohibit the U.S. military from dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas, Clinton joined 55 Republicans and voted no because she feared being painted "soft on terror." Barack Obama voted yes.
A second example, which is based not on a roll call vote but public statements - minimum sentencing laws. These racist laws incongruously punish certain forms of drugs popular among blacks, resulting in an increase in the black prison population relative to the total.
Democrats have been stiffly opposed to these minimum sentencing laws' racism and fundamental injustice. Every Democrat who was in the nomination contest but Clinton favors retroactivity for mandatory minimum sentences. Yet, Clinton has called Obama "soft on crime" and too "liberal" for his conviction that minimum sentencing laws should be abolished.
These are not complicated issues like Iraq or energy policy legislation, where many moving parts are at play or voting records can be distorted. They are stark moral questions on which there is only one right answer.
But what bothers me is far larger than Clinton's positions on these issues. Taken alone, they are disappointing, but not damning.
The dirty little secret is: I want to like Hillary.
To her credit, I believe that Clinton knows the right answer to these moral questions. It seems she expresses these positions because she truly believes their alternatives are too politically costly to justify the potential for justice. Indeed, Hillary supporters champion the fact that her positions on many issues reveal the extent to which she is willing to forestall the fulfillment of our shared principles in the name of "getting things done."
This is the essence of my rage.
It is a broader frustration with a Democratic establishment committed to the philosophy of (Bill) Clintonism. I believe in my core that followers of Clintonism, including Hillary herself, remain breathtakingly correct in their values and vision, but am angered as they choose to pursue just enough important issues of the day that we must vote for them while they remain obstinately indifferent to the great, underreported inequities of our time.
I deny the charge that political calculation is always evil and Machiavellian. Yet, I also deny that it will work in our favor this time around.
First, if voters care most about terror, no Democrat will win their support; therefore, it is our job to make the case that other issues are more important, not to play the Republican game. I've seen Democrats play that hand in Texas. It's not a winner.
Furthermore, it neglects the power of ideas.
As Clinton stresses the necessity of political moderation, what Democrats may gain through compromise is lost many times over on the moral high ground. Piecemeal strategies, at best, fail to communicate a candidate's world view; at worst, they appear contradictory and less principled to voters - and rightly so.
The sacrifices implied in her "realistic solutions" rhetoric cede the ability to make a comprehensive and powerful moral appeal to the American public. Her approach surrenders territory a priori that belongs to us - the Left has reality on its side.
Some periods call for a modest conception of specific changes. That time is not now.
Unique to this election is the ability to assert a fresh moral vision to the American people - to challenge Gingrich's and Reagan's compelling narratives head-on for the first time. That opportunity may have not been present in 1992, but it is with us now. With Hillary's candidacy, I fear that opportunity may be squandered.
In the same way that voters respond favorably when Hillary shows her "personal" side, I believe Democrats should be proud of our comprehensive sense of justice and morality, not mask it.
Indeed, politics is not only the art of the possible, but of making things possible. Today, the latter is more important - principled leadership is not only morally imperative but politically wise in our circumstances.
The Democratic contest should center on the qualities of sound judgment and consistent principle, not experience or eloquence. More than ever, we need a president who is right on day one. I welcome arguments that ascribe that quality to either candidate.
David Broockman is a freshman in Jonathan Edwards College.
© 2008 Yale Daily News
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show All"I deny the charge that political calculation is always evil and Machiavellian. Yet, I also deny that it will work in our favor this time around."
Interesting point. However, allow the first sentence to be the M.O. and you will always reach the second sentence.
"The dirty little secret is: I want to like Hillary."
Stick around, kid - you won't like any of them soon enough.
"beware of democrats."
I'm worried less about compromise than I am about collusion, corruption and cooption.
At some point, "political triangulation" and "fear" of the corporate media becomes just an excuse -- or cover -- for genuine ideological sentiment.
there is a video "A FORCE MORE POWERFUL" easily found at libraries and online. it tell how nonviolent civil disobedience has changed the modern world. it gives detailed instructions on how to get your country back. it shows real examples of people taking back their country. if you study and practice with others, you could start taking back the us by April or May.
complaining on commondreams is worse than nothing because it gives you the false impression you are changing things. GET THAT VID.
YOUR VOTE HAS NOT COUNTED IN 8+ YEARS WHY DO YOU THINK IT WILL COUNT THIS YEAR! obama hillery mccain are not going to change the system but you can. get that vid.
get that vid.
Agreeable points except for this: "First, if voters care most about terror, no Democrat will win their support..." Huh?
While the threat is tremendously overblown, do you think there are any sane Americans who don't care about terrorism? I sure do, but I don't agree with most Republicans AND Democrats in Congress that defecating on the Bill of Rights makes us safer.
For one, I don't want to like any politician or person with power. They are given power of me, theoretically because I don't think any of them should have power over my life, because they're supposed to make decisions that make my life better. IF we actually had a functioning democracy, and not rule by nobles who are completely removed from the general public, the elected officials would simply do what the public tells them to. Few of them do. Most of the decisions they make are in direct opposition to the public. Liberal democracy is a sham and is outdated. These people don't make the best decisions, they don't pay much attention to public opinion and they are too far removed to care.
Political calculation IS always evil. IF you believe in something strongly you take a stand and convince others to come to your position. If you happen to be in the minority then so be it, you at least have your morals intact and people will respect you for the stands you take.
If you don't, you'll never offer solutions that will SOLVE problems. You'll bend to people & groups, like insurance companies, who's only worry is to make sure that the problem DOESN'T get solved, which means you'll fight the same fight over, and over, and over again.
Could someone please explain to me why any of these people have the power to create laws, to give out your tax dollars to powerful private interests, to interpret the laws for you, without your direct input? In what way are these people making your lives better? Are they making decisions that you and your fellow citizens couldn't make yourselves?
I see no need for a president, it makes no sense to give one person this much power over our lives, any more than it makes sense or is justified to give corporations the power they have. I also see no reason why things like national referendums on laws that these crooks make, like we see in countries like Venezuela, isn't in order.
The answer to your thesis that Hillary is actually better than her actions is NO. Even in private, under the cover of national secrets protection, the Clinton's have covertly authorized the spying on Americans (and other unlawful acts) using Thought Reading Technology. Started in 1994, Bill Clinton's second year in office.
The only possible way to believe Hillary is better than her husband, would to deny her constant pitch of her deep involvement in policy during Bill's years in office.
You want to be "strong on terror"? Don't let your government start (endless, decades long) wars for oil, don't let them undermine democracies elsewhere because American investors find the government's decisions objectionable (obviously the citizens of those countries don't count), don't kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and force an economic system on them without their consent (in fact in direct opposition to their wishes), don't create an economic system that relies on war to function, don't export as many weapons as the US does. If you do all of this you increase terror (what would YOU do if another country was doing that to you?). "Strong on terror" to these DC bubble idiots means, in practice, increasing terrorism worldwide. What do they care though, like usual, the idea is to privatize the benefit, socialize the cost. THEY'LL profit off of the violence and we'll all be in danger as a result. Wonderful system they have going.
Hillary does not understand the difference between composition and decomposition. From the smell of things I think she's learning.
"there is a video "A FORCE MORE POWERFUL" easily found at libraries and online. it tell how nonviolent civil disobedience has changed the modern world."
papercut,
Thanks for the info - I'll look for it.
In the meantime, could you tell me how you are implementing what you learned from the video? What have you and others done to effect this change?
I don't ask because I'm cynical - I truly believe change from the grassroots is the ONLY thing that will bring us to democracy and justice - I ask because there is so little sharing of how this is done.
There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance that Washington Insiders will override the will of the voters with a secret "backroom deal".
Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.
http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html
Maybe it's because I'm likely a bit older (OK, a lot older) than Mr. Broockman, but when I was a kid, Clintonism was better known as Rockefeller Republicanism. All I know is that when a Republican runs against a Republican, a Republican wins.
Just about the worst sin I can imagine is knowing the right answers to moral questions yet doing (or supporting) something that reflects the wrong answers.
I'm finally coming around to Obama. He is not all I want, but he finally made a substantive speech this morning in which he attacked the USA's current policy of globalization, specifically NAFTA and the China Free Trade agreement. That took at least medium sized balls.
two buckets of pus, served to us by big business.
Doughyden: He also voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement.
The Clintons in particular, and the Democrats in general believe in power. They believe they should have it. There is no other moral position that they won't jetison in the effort to grab power for themselves.
Iraq, that complicated issue that this author won't touch, is a wonderful example. The Dems have consistently allowed this war to kill and maime thousands because they've believed that this was the action to take that would most likely lead to them holding power.
In 2002, they voted to authorize this war because they thought it would lead them to power in the mid-term elections just after the vote. The word from Gephardt and other leading Democrats was that by authorizing the war, that would take the war issue 'off the table' and let the Democrats win the election on their issues.
Now, we see a similar strategy over the last year or so. The Dems obviously believe that the now unpopular war will hurt Republican campaigns this year. And they also hold the counter-belief that they don't want to be blamed for 'losing the Iraq war'. So they've made damn sure the war continues full blast right up through election day.
How many hundreds of thousands have been killed by the Democrats quest for power? How many have been maimed or wounded? How many have screamed in pain? How many have mourned a loss of a loved one?
All of this because the Democrats think its the best way for them to grab power for themselves? That's all they care about. Clinton and the rest. Its an evil and immoral bunch.
I've got $5 that says that after the nomination is decided that you never hear Obama criticize globalization or NAFTA again.
Was the speech made in Ohio? A big union state with a primary coming up?
No matter, whoever gets the Dem nomination will turn hard to the right on that very day. Its the typical pattern over the last few years. They have to pretend to be progressive to try to get the nomination. Especially Obama who doesn't have as much support from the party hacks. But no matter what they say during the primaries, it all always goes out the window for the general election when they try to out Republican the Republicans.
And they always govern to the benefit of their wealthy contributors. The Clintons certainly did. Or check out the Dems in the US Senate who just this week paid back the telecoms for the contributions they've been giving. The fact that they are selling our your rights and your privacy and the very core basis of America in order to pay back their contributors doesn't matter a damn to them.
"Cluster bombs contain many little "bomblets" which are designed to explode individually on impact but often do not, leaving what are in effect tiny mines littering streets, which have resulted in over 13,000 unnecessary civilian casualties to date."
Wonder how many "necessary" civilian casualties can be added to this total. And whether any civilians were inconvenienced by the bomblets that DID explode properly the first time. At least the U.S. has one remaining export industry.
It's interesting that Obama talks about compromise. Isn't that what Bush promised concerning the dems? How did that work out? And the only thing likely to be compromised are the people's interests in favor of corporate interests. Obama's hope, I fear, is really just more hype.
I was also interested in Obama seeming to criticize the neo-liberal globalism of the DLC and Republicans, but I also always notice that Obama's speeches concerning key progressive and populist issues come at after there is obvious expression of an opinion on an issue by the "public." Or so it seems ot me.
His recent spate of economic speeches come out not as a series of programs or ideas or whatever that he is proposing, but they have come as responses to the economic problems and then couched in the specif buzz word statements.
Obama did vote against CAFTA, but I'm very suspicious of him.
When you look at what is campaigning on ("Change") and what his actgual proposals are, and who his key advisors are (I think that is very important to remember, last I read, Obama and Clinton (putative-44) are basically splitting Clinton 42's advisers, economic and foreign policy, etc. And cast your minds back to 1992 and how Clinton 42 ran for president as the new generation, as a everyman populist of sorts, a social progressive of sorts, or so that's how people wanted to see him as!!
Clinton 42 did couch and obfuscate his actual words a great deal more -- Obama uses more directly populaist catch phrases. But in this day and age of the newer media forms, I'm still not entirely convinced abt Obama being authentic, and not a cypher or mirror.
Well, Deran, remember what they say: If the people will lead, the leaders will follow. Give Obama credit for actually hearing the vox populi and positively responding.
COMarc, I'll take that bet. Anybody else got some money to lose?
COMarc I'll double your bet on your side. People are just too ready to get fooled. The man is a product of the Ivy League system, not Fidel Castro folks.
Remember, the bet is that once he is president he will NEVER,EVER criticise globalization OR NAFTA again. I believe he will. It only takes once for me to win. I don't necessarily believe that he'll do anything about it.
Why is is that Democrats champion compromise, whereas Rethugs don't? Isn't there anyone who'll be unequivocal about torture, warrantless spying, government accountability, single-payer, alternative energy, etc.?
Bill Clinton criticized Bush Sr.'s granting of China most-favored status, despite Tianamen Square, failing to link trade with human rights, etc. Then he went ahead and did the same thing himself as I recall. And of course Clinton completely ignored the genocide in Rwanda (which makes Saddam look like small potatoes).
Good sales job on the electorate, though.