In an article I missed the first time on American Power (the Americanneocon’s site), we have Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton telling us exactly why she shouldn’t be elected president:
- Hillary Clinton: the Good Democrat
Hillary Clinton’s a good Democrat. She perfectly espouses all the (politically) correct Democratic Party positions, on issues from foreign policy to poverty.
The notion of the “good Democrat” was a term some activists I knew, back in the 1990s, used to describe true-blue liberal partisans. Today’s New York Times story on Hillary Clinton’s orientation toward the role of government reminded me of the notion:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.
Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.
She said that economic excesses â€” including executive-pay packages she characterized as often â€œoffensiveâ€ and â€œwrongâ€ and a tax code that had become â€œso far out of whackâ€ in favoring the wealthy â€” were holding down middle-class living standards.
Interviewed between campaign appearances in Los Angeles on Thursday, she said those problems were also keeping the United States economy from growing as quickly as it could.
This is a prescription for failure. It is not, and never should be, the role of the government to determine what is “fair” for workers and employers and CEOs. Are some chief executive officers wildly overcompensated? Yeah, in my view, many are, but that isn’t the business of the government; that is the appropriate decision of corporations and shareholders.
And the notion that more government regulation of the economy is the solution to economic problems simply ignores all of the evidence. In our troubled world, we have had many
quacks nobly-intended economic thinkers telling us that a government which worked for the good of the people would bring greater prosperity to the people — and that’s how we got the Soviet Union and the captive forced-socialist economies of the Warsaw Pact nations, that’s how we got a beautiful island like Cuba to be mired in poverty, that’s how we got all of those nobly-intended systems to impose totalitarian controls on their people, because such systems cannot tolerate dissent.
Read further in the article, and those who somehow believe that electing Hillary Clinton will be a third term for Bill Clinton will find themselves disabused of that notion — because it clearly notes the very different economic philosophies between them.