Hillary's Maggie Thatcher Imperative
by bored now, Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 03:36:43 AM EDT
i'm a single-issue voter (right now). to some extent, it's the war, but what it really is about is reversing the immoral bush doctrine that encourages pre-emptive strikes on those countries with whom we disagree.
so you can understand my concern about hillary's defense of the presidential prerogative and her unwillingness to reverse the bush doctrine. after all, it's not that different from the policy of her husband's administration -- although the united states was held in much higher esteem than it is today. but for me, it's not just about (dis)trusting the person, it's about distrusting the policy.
hillary's fear is that, as a woman in a man's world, she will be perceived as weak. hillary's fear of being seen as weak is the reason that she refuses to apologize for voting to invade iraq without just cause. her fear of being seen as weak is probably one reason why she voted to invade iraq in the first place. she has, and undoubtedly will continue to, overcompensate because she doesn't want anyone thinking that she is (or will be) weak.
hillary's fear is dangerous. but the biggest implication here is that her fear will prevent her from overturning the bush doctrine of pre-emption. doing so would inevitably get her labeled as weak.
hillary clinton needs to be perceived as having the iron will of maggie thatcher, and the only way that she can do that is by showing success at war. not ending war. waging war. like george bush, hillary is more likely to get us involved in an unnecessary war -- just so that she will be seen as strong.
this is hillary clinton's war as much as it is george bush's. she was among its staunchest advocates among democrats in the senate (with joe lieberman). she assured democrats that the (bill) clinton administration had the same intelligence that bush was using to justify going to war. she gave cover to those democrats who needed it.
in the rush to war, hillary clinton was an enabler. her attempt to revise her part in this may be good politics but it is bad history. and it seeks to hide the lessons that we should derive from that history -- that hillary's fear of being seen as weak makes her reach bad decisions, to exercise poor judgment. she simply does not have the temperment that one would hope for at the helm of the greatest power on earth.
this also means, no matter what she says now, that hillary cannot take our troops out of iraq unless national security voters were satisfied. hillary's need to be perceived as a woman of strength means that our occupation of iraq will not only be prolonged, it will be institutionalized. hillary won't be able to stand up to the military -- just as her husband failed to. while they may respect civilian control the military knows how to hint at executive weakness when they want to undermine a president. hillary can't afford that. so the military will do very well in the next clinton administration.
the potential of hillary clinton as president will also focus the minds of national security voters who may have been unhappy with george bush. just as hillary firms up the opposition of evangelicals and right wing extremists, she will do the same to national security voters. her service on the armed services committee has done little to assauge the goc or the military industrial complex. that's absurd, but it's a fact. the military and the military-supported corporations stand to benefit from hillary's election because her fear of being perceived as weak means that she will bend over backwards for them.
in the end, hillary will be a war president. unfortunately, she will not end the war on iraq, but will expand it in order to achieve the far-off victory that the national security complex seeks. i know that she says otherwise, but she really voted for the war before she voted against it...