I’ve been more than a little disappointed by the pie fights triggered by the call for Hillary to adopt Bernie Sanders’ agenda on key issues including TPP and addressing the challenge of income inequality, both by the original postings and by the pushback from Hillary supporters saying she shouldn’t move because she beat Sanders in the battle of ideas.
Both frames ignore what I think is the key mistake being made in this discussion: assuming that Hillary isn’t already there. In fact, she is a dedicated liberal voice and her challenge is overcoming perceptions of where she stands that are at odds with her actual stances on key issues.
On trade — Hillary has come out opposed to the proposed TPP, saying it fails to meet her standards. From the Las Vegas primary debate:
[The TPP] didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not.
As Senator, she voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and she has spoken out against China’s currency manipulation which has been a major problem in achieving “fair” trade. So Hillary is there in supporting “fair” — not just “free” — trade as the basis for US trade policy.
On economic inequality, and on the co-option of our Democracy by wealthy special interests — Hillary was calling out these concern and the need to tackle it as two of her “four fights”, literally from the day she officially launched her presidential campaign. To suggest that Clinton wasn’t “there” on these issues ignores her own words (spoken before Bernie Sanders was even on the scene as a presidential candidate):
Prosperity can’t be just for CEOs and hedge fund managers.Democracy can’t be just for billionaires and corporations.
Prosperity and democracy are part of your basic bargain too …
[FIRST FIGHT]:
If you’ll give me the chance, I’ll wage and win Four Fights for you.
The first is to make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top…
[FOURTH FIGHT]:
That’s why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans.
We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people.
For those who seem to think Hillary needs to “move” on these issues — I suspect their concerns have less to do with Hillary’s positions on the issues and more to do with perceptions based on (1) Bill’s record in the White House, and (2) general distrust of Hillary (“she may say that now — but I know she won’t really do it”).
On the first point, I think Hillary has ALWAYS been the more progressive Clinton, and continues to be to this day. Fortunately, this November we are presented with Hillary Clinton the candidate — not Bill Clinton — and that means a better opportunity to advance progressive causes, if we can win the downballot Congressional races and give a President Clinton a Congress with which she can truly work.
On the second point, those critics fall among the “Hillary Haters” and nothing she says or does on the issues will cure them of their distrust. The best we can hope is that those who have progressive leanings will recognize the threat of Trump and vote for Hillary despite their distrust. But “moving” to Bernie’s stance on issues won’t change their minds.
So Hillary supporters — when you see Bernie supporters calling for her to “move” in their direction: why attack Bernie’s and their ideas when Hillary shares the vast majority of them — and where they disagree, it tends to be about the most effective means of achieving progressive goals, not disagreement about those underlying goals? Instead you can tell them:
Bernie supporters — when you ask Hillary to move on the issues you care about — first take a look at where she actually stands. If you haven’t, PLEASE visit Hillary’s campaign site and read through her stances on the issues. Or read Addison’s series (hopefully to be resumed soon?) looking in detail at specific pieces of her platform, from paid family leave, to gun violence, to autism. As that author writes:
Hillary Clinton has 31 policy groups on her campaign’s “Issues” page, which outline her policy goals as president.
And, guess what, they’re great!
She is better helped, as a candidate, by improving her positives than increasing Trump’s negatives (he does that well enough on his own).
So why not highlight those positives, night after night, and promote a better sense of the progressive and popular choice that she is? It’s easy enough to do, she’s a great candidate with generally great positions on the issues Americans care about.
Hillary does face an optics challenge from Trump’s anti-establishment campaign. It is hard for a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State to effectively tap into the anti-establishment sentiment that Sanders ran on, and on which Trump is making his play. That is an obstacle she’ll need to overcome, though embracing the historic nature of her candidacy as the first woman to be a major party nominee in US history certainly shakes up traditional “establishment” politics.
But let’s not confuse those optics with Hillary’s positions or the agenda on which she is running. She is running on an unabashed progressive platform, and she doesn’t need to “move” on those issues. She’s already right there with us.