Hillary Clinton would be a far more transformative President than Barack Obama [View All]

[ruggerson]

Bill Clinton was a master triangulator. His was a coopting presidency in the grand, glorious tradition of Woodrow Wilson. He liberally borrowed from the opposing party’s agenda, incorporated it into his own, and effected change in small, incremental steps. His was a solid presidency, but not one that oversaw a dramatic sea change in American policy. He had the charm and the political skill to be a transformer, but he lacked the political will and the courage. The most memorable coopting Presidents of the last century were Wilson, Eisenhower, Nixon and Clinton. Co-opters often have successful presidencies, by and large, are roundly disliked by the opposing party and are usually re elected handily. Bill Clinton had many solid achievements and will be remembered as a good President.

Barack Obama essentially guarantees us that he will be a true Clintonian in both style and substance. His campaign rhetoric of hope and change is inextricably wedded to his promise of unity and bipartisanship. He is telling us that he wants to govern by compromise, a governing objective and method which are the very essence of coopting presidencies. He finds partisanship anathema, he seeks to find common ground with the opposing party: all vital ingredients of a coopting leadership style. This is exactly the kind of leadership which necessarily results in very cautious progress and slow, measured change. He is not making a secret of this. He is telegraphing what kind of President he wants to be by both words and deeds. He is promising us the very model of a coopting Presidency.

Hillary Clinton is a very different animal from both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. She is fiercely partisan and unapologetic about her beliefs. Her heroine is Eleanor Roosevelt, an unrelenting crusader.

The most transformative presidents of the 20th century were Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ and Ronald Reagan (the negative nightmare of the transformative Presidents). Obama was right in singling out Reagan as a transformer, but he mangled the comparison. Obama is not angling to be a liberal version of Reagan. He is angling to be a liberal version of the far more cautious Richard Nixon. FDR and Reagan were both highly partisan and deeply ideological. It is Hillary Clinton who fits this mold, not Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton is passionate about the progressive ideals she has fought for over her entire life. She is a crusader for national healthcare, for children, for the agenda of the working man and woman. She has political will and courage that her husband, despite his charm, does not possess. She is highly partisan, very divisive and unrelentingly ideological, as were TR, FDR and Reagan. She makes no bones about her agenda and she indicates that she is unrelentingly committed to fighting for it, only grudgingly accepting compromise when forced into a corner with no other option. Her style, her personality, her campaign all tell us what kind of President she aspires to be: a change agent of monumental proportions. Transformative presidents move mountains. They accomplish great victories and suffer great defeats. They are adored by their own party and literally loathed by the opposition. They accomplish enormous change and reshape the very landscape of the country. If one understands the history of our nation’s presidencies, it is quite clear what kind of President Hillary Clinton hopes to be. She is telling us with her every speech and her every deed.

Many political pundits are pushing the narrative that it is Barack Obama who is angling to be the transformer. These pundits apparently do not understand our political past and are not listening to what the candidates are telling us. These pundits are just hearing words: “hope” and “change” and following suit with their muddled, simplistic analyses. Their assertions are a canard. The fact is that Obama’s essence is that of the cooptor, the unity candidate, the great compromiser.

Likewise, these same nattering talking heads blithely assume that Hillary Clinton will necessarily govern in the fashion her husband did, because they are a married couple. It an inherently patriarchal assumption, and one fraught with empirical inconsistency, yet they make it anyway. It is the easy, surface, glib assumption to make.

Between the two candidates, if one reads history, it is easy to distinguish the one with the potential to be the earth moving transformer.

And it isn’t Barack Obama.

It is Senator Hillary Clinton.

The press and the New York and DC pundits have it completely wrong yet again.

It isn't the first time and it won't be the last.