Up front: If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will support her. I have no problem with a woman president. I think she is “qualified” (though, qualified is a vague term and I don’t think it covers all the things necessary to make a good leader). I think she is a lot better than any Republican running. I want our next Supreme Court justice to be appointed by a Democrat.
But I can’t support her as long as there is a better alternative. Think of the story I’m about to tell as a parable.
***
Jane Doe is walking down the street one day, perhaps on her way to the store to buy milk and eggs, perhaps just out for a bit of air and exercise. A van pulls up beside her in the road and a man jumps out.
“Miss Doe!” he says. “Could I have a moment of your time?”
Jane would like to get on with her business, but out of politeness, she pauses to listen to him.
“I have here a check for $250k. I’ll endorse it over to you if you just let me take a selfie with you!”
Jane blinks. That’s a lot of money in her world. It’s more than she will earn at her job for the next five years. And all he wants is a perfectly legal selfie.
But on second thought, something doesn’t seem right. Why would he want to pay her that much for something that he could arguably get for nothing — or at least a lot less than $250k. What does he really want? When he’s leaning in for the picture, will he grab her and drag her into the van? Is this safe?
Jane takes a cautious step back. She looks around to see if there is anyone else around who might be called on for assistance.
“Um… In a hurry,” she stammers. “Sorry. No time.”
Jane pivots and starts running.
***
You’ve probably figured out I’m talking about the speaking fees. They were legal. But they were excessive. I don’t claim to have detailed current knowledge of what customary celebrity speaking fees would be, but some peripheral contact with the market in the past leads me to believe that around $50,000 (maybe lower, but my knowledge comes from some 10 years ago, so I’m adding some for inflation) would be the top end.
If someone offers you a lot more than the customary fee there’s nothing illegal about saying yes. But common sense says that when someone offers you a lot more than the going rate, they want something more than what they seem to be asking for.
The fact that Clinton (and her husband) accepted the unusually large payments does not prove “quid pro quo.” But a reasonable person would conclude that the payer thinks he’s going to get more than just a speech.
So, here is my sticking point: The person who accepts the outrageously large fee for minimal work is doing so under false pretenses if he or she has no intention of ever doing the payer a favor.
Clinton says she isn’t going to do the big financial institutions that paid the speaking fees any favors if she becomes president. Maybe she won’t. But in the bigger picture, she either lied to the big financial institutions when she took the money, or she’s lying to us. A third possibility is she lied to herself and thought “I’m worth it.” I can’t pretend to know which, but a lie is still a lie.
Jane Doe in my parable became instantly suspicious when presented with a deal that was too good to be true. A good supply of common sense is important when choosing a leader.
Here’s why I’ll be able to get past this sticking point if Clinton wins the primary: Wealth obtained while acting as a public servant, or during intervals out of the public sector, is not unusual among our politicians. Most of our politicians are wealthy. They accumulate that wealth in a number of ways, including the ability to invest with quasi-insider knowledge. Democrats and Republicans alike have found ways to personally profit from their public service. And truth be told, to run for office in this day and age, you have to have some money to start with. I couldn’t do it, because I couldn’t set aside the things I do to pay my bills for long enough to mount a campaign.
The sad truth is almost anyone who is running for president is going to be wealthy and will have a relationship to money quite different from my own. So, the supply of people who relate to money the way I do is short indeed. Very few of the politicians available to run for president would meet my personal standard for financial ethics. You gotta go with the candidate you have, not the candidate you wish you had.
We have one, though. His name is Bernie Sanders. He has served the public as an elected official since 1980 and yet has not become wealthy. That speaks to never enriching himself by leveraging his influence as a public official. It means he understands my daily dilemma of do I spend the money I have right now on this, or that, or save it against future needs. He understands how much stress my health insurance premium puts on my budget. He knows that a cut in Social Security will cut me to the bone. When it comes to money, Bernie Sanders is one of us.
I like his stance on foreign military intervention better than I like Clinton’s. I like his position on health care better than I like Clinton’s. I like his character better than I like Clinton’s.
I want him to win the nomination. So as long as there is a chance, I’m hanging on. As long as he stays in the race, I’m with him.