PREFACE
It has been a very long time since I’ve posted here. I just took a moment to read back over the occasionally-angry, sometimes-naive writings of the 20-something self I see reflected in older posts, and I experienced again what it’s like to feel those first pangs of disillusionment with a system of government that seems to be showing some signs of wear around the edges, if not at its very core.
I had an interaction yesterday with someone who does not support my candidate in the primary, and for all the bombast and vitriol, he actually provoked real thought. I examined my own political evolution, and took the opportunity to really, really explore why I support Hillary Clinton for the nomination. I hope you’ll stick with me to see why I found this exploration incredibly valuable.
PART I
I have had a number of people quietly reach out to me and confide that since they know me as a lefty liberal, they are surprised that I am supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary. I’ve also had some people not-so-quietly drop stink-bombs on social-media threads in which I've dared to say nice things about her (even if I’m also praising her opponent). I’ve been surprised, in return, to find that occasionally people whose opinions I usually find well-informed don’t strike me quite the same way when it comes to trying to discuss her character or her accomplishments or her role in public life. Not everyone, of course… but it feels sometimes like I’m fending off attacks that came right from Karl Rove’s infamous fax machine of days gone by. And it seems like any assertion that she has built a lifelong, solid record of progressive leadership too often earns a sneer—a sneer that I find to be, well, extremely unfair.
Others have offered truly challenging arguments that forced me to take a closer look at her than I have at any other candidate, ever. The result may not have been as intended... I came out more convinced than ever that she is the right choice. But those challenges are the ones I really do appreciate, because triggering this kind of examination is a fair demand when you are privileged to live in a country where your vote holds so much sway over so many unseen, powerless, and barely-understood lives not only here at home but in far-flung lands where our presence is felt by those whose daily routines are too often shattered by tumult and tragedy in a world that seems, at times, to have gone mad.
I won’t really talk about her opponent in this exploration, because I’m not voting against him. I really, really am voting for her, because I think she’s done some pretty great things, more broadly, more impactfully, and more methodically than any other candidate running in this race. Oh, of course she is imperfect, and there are major, substantive blemishes that any honest supporter must admit to--blemishes and mistakes that pockmark an otherwise superb record of leadership and engagement. Show me a "great leader" without flaws, and I'll show you a country that doesn't have the liberty to hold its leaders accountable. Politicians are never our perfectly-sculpted, superhuman saviors; when we believe they are, we run the risk of falling prey to demagoguery (see: Trump). They can’t be perfect, they can’t always be right. All you can do is look at the skills, the depth, the intelligence, and the record of someone who asks for this kind of job, and decide who you think is most likely to enact the sorts of change you would like to see without waking up in a bad mood on a Thursday and accidentally sending humanity back to the Stone Age.
For me, the following breakdown of accomplishments and efforts (even those that did not meet with success) so far outweighs the blemishes on her record that she is simply and plainly the obvious choice as the standard-bearer for the progressive movement to succeed Barack Obama. To those who think she’s “always wrong,” take a look at some of the stuff she stood up for when it wasn’t popular. When she’s gotten late to the game on one aspect of a progressive agenda, she’s been there early on a couple other parts. So, while I have no illusions that anyone will change her or his mind because of my little exploration of my chosen Badass-Grandma-in-Chief, at least maybe some of you can understand why so many smart, committed people are choosing to say, #imwithher.
Part II
I discovered a little while into crafting this piece that fully encapsulating her life is a tall order, so I'll just start with the part where she was first really kind of "ours," and was first treated as either a national treasure or a national football to kick around, depending on which side of the aisle you called home back in those somehow-less-polarized days of early 1993. As first lady (FLOTUS), she chose not to simply take a ceremonial role and pick out the china for state dinners, though by all reports she delegated that task well when not feeling too penned in by security and sycophants. Much more importantly, she chose to lead wherever she could find a space to step in and try to make a meaningful change. She took her place among the most impactful women to fulfill that role, in different ways than Eleanor Roosevelt and Edith Wilson, to be sure, but no less importantly. She withstood breathlessly-reported, bogus "Scandals!!!"(TM) about real estate deals in which she lost money, handled the intentionally public embarrassment of a witch-hunt against her husband with grace and dignity... she was accused by talk-radio hosts of murdering life-long friends, then was mocked for correctly identifying a well-funded right-wing noise machine dedicated to stifling her voice and soiling her husband's legacy. She went through the kind of public trial-by-fire almost no one on this planet can truly appreciate, and managed to come out even stronger and more determined on the other side--she became the first FLOTUS to become a United States Senator or to take a seat in another president’s cabinet. And let's not forget, she was really popular while she was doing all that post-FLOTUS stuff.
But before we jump ahead too far, let's examine her record at each stage of her public life after she was "ours" as a country, not "just" an activist or an accomplished lawyer or the first lady of Arkansas. During her time as FLOTUS, she:
- Continued a lifelong commitment to advancing women’s rights and the well-being of children.
- Led the push for healthcare reform that, while unsuccessful, nonetheless was the first major effort in a generation to create any form of universal healthcare, and which laid the groundwork for the Affordable Care Act.
- Was instrumental in creating the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) with Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch as bipartisan legislative partners.
- Delivered the landmark speech, “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights” in China, over tremendous pressure to “soften” the tone and the rhetoric that invoked the atrocities of dowry deaths and the one-child policy. For a woman already pilloried and denigrated as not knowing her ceremonial place, it took some ovaries to push ahead and do that, and the bravery of doing so very likely changed the world for the better in a lasting and meaningful way.
- Partnered with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to launch Vital Voices Democracy Initiative, to empower women around the world, to combat human trafficking, and to become full participants in their cultures as agents of commerce, thought, and political change.
Ok, so there’s a lot of “womaning” in there. Sounds a lot like a one-note candidate, yeah? She heard that a lot. (I bet those of you who have chosen to support Senator Sanders get tired of hearing that "one issue" thing, too, now that he's "ours" to variously cherish or kick around, as a public figure willing to go against the conventional wisdom in pursuit of his bedrock convictions. You're not necessarily wrong to bristle a bit at the suggestion of one-dimensionality, and we have one more thing in common.) At any rate, that "one issue" is where she got to first make her mark on the national stage, but that’s not where she stopped.
I often hear how she’s “always, always wrong,” on “everything of importance.” That FLOTUS-y stuff doesn’t sound all too wrong, to me, though. Those were the things she focused on, and her work mattered. But let’s go ahead and look at the things I admire about her time in the Senate.
Part III
First of all, she arrived as a global celebrity, and so she chose to keep a fairly low, unpresumptuous profile early on so as not to step on old, white, male toes and inflated-but-fragile egos in that staid and decorous gentleman’s club on the hill across from her old apartment above the store. She set about forging new alliances and deepening old friendships that proved valuable in pushing forward any number of initiatives—and along the way, there were certainly votes she cast and positions she took that I don’t support (yep, Iraq is the big one, and I have to say that I don’t support that vote and never will, regardless of the speech about strengthening diplomacy). But beyond that there’s a depth and a breadth to her record that demonstrates this truth: she is not just some sell-out, some one-note corporate shill who has fumbled every opportunity to make a positive impact. She was on the right side of a lot of things that I care about. Maybe a few you care about, too.
During her time in the Senate, she either sponsored or co-sponsored legislation and/or amendments to do the following (not all of these made it into law, of course, given the nature of our legislative body, but to those who say she’s “ALWAYS wrong…” well, for a lot of these, Bernie was her fellow co-sponsor—a reason you won’t catch me being too tough on him):
o Authorize the federal government to assist in the investigation of hate crimes.
o Add sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the list of categories protected under previous federal hate crimes law.
o Expand access to generic prescription medicines and end the ban on lower-cost prescription imports by individuals.
o Ease restrictions on voter registration by mail, to create greater access to democratic representation for the poor and/or immobile.
o Require the Dept. of Energy to research hydrogen fuel cell technology.
o Strengthen and clarify the rights of alleged crime victims (specifically helpful to victims of domestic violence) while balancing the need for a fair and impartial judicial process for the accused. o Compel the investigation and prosecution of the atrocities committed against Iraqi prisoners. o Expand funding for information and resources to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies through education and access to contraception. o Nullify the Bush administration’s EPA rule change that loosened environmental regulation of industrial mercury admissions. o Establish a commission to investigate and learn from the mistakes of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. (Had the GOP not stymied this, some organizational aspects of government that later muddled responses to different crises may have been ironed out earlier on.)
o Expand funding for Pell Grants and raise the maximum allowed per student.
o Increase funding for the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (i.e., allow poor people to have heat and hot water in the winter time).
o Increase funding for the federal AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP).
o Provide emergency Disaster Relief Medicare to survivors of Hurricane Katrina and reimburse states for expenses related to such healthcare.
o Maintain the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
o Stop a GOP-led effort to curtail targeted case management (necessary for connecting eligible individuals to medical, social, educational, and other services).
o Make it a federal crime for Big Oil to price-gouge consumers during a declared state of emergency.
o Establish a federal system of reimbursing states for the costs of healthcare and education for undocumented residents.
o Allocate funds to assist the Appalachian region in a pivot away from dependence on the coal economy.
o Enact a 40% increase in the minimum wage over two years.
o Stop a GOP-led effort to block judges, courts, etc. from hearing or considering a writ of habeas corpus by individuals detained by the US military.
o Increase congressional oversight of CIA detention policies and facilities in order to curb abuses against detainees. o Provide funding and support for stem cell research. o Establish a uniform protocol for the appointment of US Attorneys. o Vastly expand funding for programs supporting Native American healthcare, addressing the broad-spectrum needs of building a functioning healthcare infrastructure for Native American communities. o Create a voting seat in the House of Representatives for Washington, DC (yeah, adding one for Utah, too, to shut up partisan whining on the right, but finally giving DC a vote is the important part)
o Increase funding to repair bridges suffering from neglect (also referred to as “deferred maintenance” by those who didn't want to admit they were balancing America's economy on one quivering, rusty beam of one bridge spanning the Mississippi).
o Affirm the rights of detainees of the United States to protections outlined in the Constitution.
o Enact protections against abusive re-deployment of active duty and reserve military personnel to combat zones.
o Make telecommunications companies liable to individuals making civil claims of illegal surveillance.
o The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Even when she didn’t win, even when she didn’t write those bills, she was on record as being on the right side of history, in my estimation.
Also as Senator, she spoke out against the draconian bankruptcy bill, but was not able to be present to vote (her absence was not a factor in the bill’s ultimate passage):
HRC: While I strongly believe that Congress should act to fix the problems in our bankruptcy system, I also believe that this bill is misguided and deeply flawed. This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are ALL better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a "fresh start" and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives.
Additionally, she was instrumental, along with Chuck Schumer, in obtaining funding for redevelopment of the World Trade Center site after the 2001 attacks that devastated the southern tip of Manhattan. She was one of the leading figures to investigate the illnesses afflicting first-responders to the attacks, helping to gain legitimacy for their claims and build political pressure to support their healthcare and social-safety-net needs. While she was heckled by first-responders at a 9/11 benefit concert shortly after the attacks (classy, guys), by the time she ran for reelection she had won their union endorsements precisely because of her unwavering support and advocacy for their needs.
She vocally opposed the Bush administration’s reckless tax cuts, which were instrumental in wiping out the budget surplus left in place by her husband’s administration and which contributed significantly to future budget woes.
She twice voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, in 2004 and 2006. To be frank, her floor speech in 2004 was a little weak, and a little coyly pandering in trying to appear as though she took the proponents seriously before undermining their arguments. But, conversely, she voted correctly and spoke against the amendment, even if her words didn't demonstrate the kind of bravery she had shown on other issues nearer and dearer to her heart. I can't find a 2006 speech to reference, so as a gay man in 2016, I can kind of furrow my brow at the political choice to not take a firmer stand... that's one of those flaw-thingies I talked about earlier, and she was late to the game on this opportunity to lead. I can accept that, as part of the tapestry of a life lived in the public eye.
Intermittent criticisms of various depth or meaning aside, during her tenure as Senator, she consistently earned approval ratings of 65-72% from New Yorkers. She successfully pivoted from the wife of a politician who found herself a bit hamstrung and working on a narrow spectrum of issues, into a popular, progressive two-term Senator serving one of the bluest (but most diverse) states in the nation--with an expansive and forward-thinking menu of efforts to make life better for the people she is now alleged to not care about.
Part IV
As Secretary of State, she quickly impressed former rivals from Team Obama by coming in with grace, humility, and a collaborative tone that won people over. She earned 60%+ approval ratings as a partner with Barack Obama in the herculean task of restoring American prestige around the world following the disastrous Bush presidency. She traveled thousands of miles to rebuild essential relationships, expanded the use of “smart power” as an alternative to force, and oversaw the transition of Iraqi missions from military installations to diplomatic ones. She also:
- Oversaw the creation of the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, (http://www.state.gov/s/globalfoodsecurity/129952.htm).
- Engineered the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table re: its nuclear weapons program, while simultaneously boxing in those who were pushing for yet another disastrous foreign war (including Netanyahu, whom she so frequently gets knocked for rhetorically "coddling" nowadays).
- Led negotiations for the “New START” US-Russia nuclear arms treaty, the terms of which are indeed being followed despite increased Russian bellicosity on the world stage.
- Was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the historic US-China climate deal, which is a significant step towards stopping humanity’s march towards climatological catastrophe.
- Was a key factor, working with the Swiss, in helping Turkey and Armenia complete a treaty establishing diplomatic ties for the first time since the Armenian genocide (just don't call it that in Turkey just yet).
- Negotiated the cease-fire between Israel and Palestine.
- Initiated the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, in order to more smartly deploy resources and encourage human development around the world.
- Negotiated both economic/strategic goals with China while simultaneously securing the release of “blind dissident” Chen Guancheng.
Her time at State is laid out pretty thoroughly in this article, which doesn’t shrink away from her mistakes nor those of the people who were wrong when she was right. It looks at American policy successes and failures on her watch from an informed point-of-view, it doesn’t pull punches, but it doesn’t spread misinformation. In tone and in substance, the author understands that she was still, ultimately, working for someone else—without giving her a pass for the ways in which she worked the levers of power available to her in her role.
A word in her defense to those who believe she represents the continuation of a "racist, imperialist" tradition (an oft-repeated diatribe in my experience of the discourse surrounding this primary season): In a complicated world, if the United States is going to be a global leader (and we don’t have much choice but to maintain a role as a global leader, at this particular moment in history), there will be mistakes. Those mistakes will kill people (as has been pointed out correctly by those who believe that intervention in the affairs of other nations is inherently destructive and arrogant). It may well be that her willingness to push for changes in other countries has been misguided at times, but I also can see precisely why she and others in positions of responsibility feel that they have a historical obligation to do so. The stakes of international engagement are not small, but as the last remaining superpower, the transition to a fully multilateral and cooperative international community won’t happen overnight. History is littered with the skeletons of people we could have helped; it is also littered with the skeletons of people who died from our efforts to help them.
That's what she talks about when she discusses "hard choices." At this moment, in our lifetimes in the reality we inhabit, we don't have the option of sitting on the sidelines of history, as much as we would sometimes like to be absolved of the responsibility that comes with our great power. It is an asset to have looked into the darkness from so close a vantage point—and it is a testament to her character that she still believes that we are not powerless to create light in that darkness.
I support Secretary Clinton’s candidacy and her record because, criticisms and mistakes and miscalculations aside, she has demonstrated the thorough, nuts-and-bolts knowledge necessary to create a more stable international community through deep and proactive engagement--an engagement that is essential for the world's most powerful and wealthy country. By renewing that type of engagement in concert with our fairly remarkable current president, that creates the possibility of a world less riven by war, where the United States and our allies are less likely to feel obligated (tempted?) to project force, and in which someday opportunity and enlightenment might mean the dawn of something that looks like a lasting global peace. Sure, that's optimistic. Possibly quixotic. But those nuts-and-bolts efforts are the stuff such dreams are really made of.
There are certainly rocky aspects to her tenure, at State: I supported the international coalition that halted the impending slaughter of Libyans by their dictator, but the failure to plan for the aftermath shows a troubling failure of our institutions to grasp the lessons of over-eager interventions in the affairs of other nations. She will have to take these lessons to heart if she is to avoid similar missteps (which, again, lest anyone reading think I maintain otherwise, are not victimless—and the people watching our drones fly overhead don’t get to vote in our elections). It is essential that she demonstrate to us and to the world her commitment to continue the realignment of our foreign policy along a smarter, increasingly multilateral, and less self-serving axis.
That said, it’s important to push back on the idea that she alone is somehow single-handedly responsible for the persistence of the US foreign policy that has unfolded over the last half-century; in fact, because of her deep experience and exposure to the consequences of our failures, she is better equipped than any other candidate in the running to confront the broad spectrum of our objectives, our responsibilities, and our culpabilities head-on in the evolving 21st century world.
Part V
A complete picture of her service and commitment can’t ignore the extraordinary work she and her family have done outside of public office, and the importance of this work as pure philanthropy and good will should not be discounted. It speaks to her character and to that of her husband that they have leveraged their connections, their prestige, and their skills to impact humanity via innovative collaborations between traditional and nontraditional conduits of action. Through the Clinton Global Initiative, as “private” citizens, she and her husband have persuaded individuals and organizations to invest billions of dollars in human development. By harnessing and cross-pollinating the avenues of action previously unique to NGOs, governments, and private enterprise, they have helped pioneer a model of global change that has the power to reshape the arc of history in that most meaningful of ways—in the mundane daily reality of those history would otherwise have forgotten, who are able to live longer, healthier, more productive lives contributing to our human family. The impact isn’t only discernible in the lives these initiatives touch directly—by empowering people on the local level, these efforts are amplified across human and institutional relationships. A partial list of accomplishments includes:
- Access to clean drinking water for 27 million people
- Expanded access to education for as many as 40+ million children
- Access to healthcare for millions of people in underserved parts of the world - Innovative and persistent work to stop the spread and morbidity of HIV/AIDS in Africa, as well as to save and improve lives by tackling overlooked diseases - Convincing five major banks to provide a total of $1 billion for major cities to retrofit old buildings to combat climate change
- Combating hunger in Africa by providing farmers with disease-resistant seeds, extending microcredit, and engineering irrigation systems
- Combating childhood obesity in more economically advanced countries
- Providing disaster relief in the wake of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, after Hurricane Katrina, and in response to the 2010 earthquake that devastated Haiti.
- The lists actually get mind-numbing, so no more specifics or I'll go cross-eyed.
Conclusion
In short, Hillary Clinton is a candidate with a depth and breadth of experience, intellect, resourcefulness, and courage that goes far beyond what her critics have claimed. She has been advocating for smart policies, for the empowerment of the less advantaged, and for the betterment of both the United States and the world at large for a substantial portion of her life. She has done it all in the public eye, while tolerating dishonest attacks on her credibility, her character, her record, and her integrity—attacks that would have caused many less-committed people to wilt and slink away from the eternal glare of the 24-7 media cycle.
Policies and everything else aside, I think it’s important to say that I just plain like the lady. I admire her resilience. I admire her strength. I admire her passion, her compassion, her commitment to people in need here and abroad, her clear love of making a difference in the lives of people who have no voice. I admire her persistence, her dorkiness, her policy wonk awkwardness.
And I forgive her flaws, because just like you and just like me, or any candidate for any office, she is a human and therefore not flawless. Beyond that, I believe she has earned that forgiveness, by owning up to her mistakes and by still trying, after all this time in the fickle spotlight of public opinion, to embody the principles that set her on the path of public service in the first place. She’s the best-equipped candidate in the race to step into the most difficult job in the world and keep us moving forward towards economic justice, expanded opportunity and access to resources, and a more peaceful and secure world.
I don’t see the need to denigrate her opponent’s vision or his qualifications. I’ll vote for him in November if he wins the nomination. But if you’ve ever scratched your head and wondered why some “otherwise intelligent, progressive” friend or acquaintance might support her despite x or y criticism, it’s because we believe that her contributions and her life experiences far and away outweigh anything that can detract from those assets.
So, uh… yeah. That’s why I’m voting for Hillary today. She’s my gal, warts and glitter and pantsuits and all. And I'm proud to support her. You don’t have to, but I do hope you leave here understanding why I do, and respecting that choice.
