Subscribe Register Login
Wednesday, June 20, 2018, 4:18 p.m.


Top Picks - Mobile App



By Charles Krauthammer

This article was published June 27, 2016 at 2:34 a.m.

"I believe in an America always moving toward the future."

--Hillary Clinton, June 21

This was not the most important line in Clinton's Ohio economic policy speech, only the most amazing. Surely there cannot be a more vacuous, meaningless piece of political rhetoric. Every terrestrial entity from nematode to the United States of America moves forward into the future quite on its own, thank you. Where else is there to go?

To be fair, however, spouting emptiness is tempting when you have the impossible task of running as the de facto incumbent in a ragingly "change" year. Clinton is trapped by circumstance. She's the status quo candidate, Barack Obama's heir, running essentially on more of the same when, after two terms and glaring failures both at home and abroad, Americans are hardly clamoring for four more years.

Historically speaking, they almost invariably do not. Which is why for the last 60 years, with only one exception, whenever one party has held the White House for two terms, it's been unceremoniously turned out. (The one exception: 1988, when Ronald Reagan was rewarded with a third term to be served by George H.W. Bush.)

How little does Clinton have to offer? In her recent speeches, amid paragraph upon paragraph of attacks on Donald Trump, she lists the usual "investments" in clean energy and small business, in school construction and the power grid, and of course more infrastructure.

That's about as tired a cliché as taking the country into the future. Ever heard a candidate come out against infrastructure? Even Trump waxes poetic about the roads and bridges he will rebuild, plus erecting that beautiful wall.

Haven't we been here before? All those shovel-ready infrastructure projects to be funded by Obama's $830 billion stimulus? Where did the money go? Yet the one area of agreement among all candidates of all parties is that our infrastructure is crumbling still.

Defending the status quo today is a thankless undertaking. It nearly cost Clinton the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders campaigned loudly and convincingly against the baleful consequences of the Obama years--stagnant wages, income inequality and a squeezing of the middle class. Clinton was forced to echo those charges while simultaneously defending the president and policies that brought on the miseries.

Not easy to do. She is left therefore with a pared and pinched rationale for her candidacy. She promises no fundamental change, no relief from the new normal of slow growth, low productivity and economic stagnation. Instead, she offers government as remediator, as gap-filler. Hillaryism steps in to alleviate the consequences of what it cannot change with a patchwork of subsidies, handouts and small-ball initiatives.

Hence the $30 billion she proposes to soften the blow for the coal miners she will put out of business. Hence her cure for stagnant wages. Employers are reluctant to give you a wage hike in an economy growing at 1 percent. So she will give it to you instead by decreeing from Washington a huge increase in the minimum wage.

Hillaryism embodies the essence of modern liberalism. Having reached the limits of a welfare state grown increasingly sclerotic, bureaucratic and dysfunctional, the mission of modern liberalism is to patch the fraying safety net with yet more programs and entitlements.

It reflexively rejects structural reform. (That's the project of Paul Ryan and his Reformicons.) The triangulating Bill Clinton was open to structural change, most notably in his 1996 welfare reform. Hillaryism is not.

She is offering herself as safety-net patcher. A worthy endeavor perhaps, but compared to the magic promised first by Sanders and now by Trump, hardly scintillating. Hence her campaign strategy: platitudes (the future), programs (a dozen for every constituency) and a heavy dose of negativity. Her speeches go through the motions on "vision," while relentlessly attacking Trump as radical, extreme and dangerous.

Her line of argument is quite straightforward: I'm the devil you know--experienced, if flawed; safe, if devious; reliable, if totally uninspired. I give you steady incrementalism. Meanwhile, the other guy is absurdly risky. His policies on trade, immigration and national security threaten trade wars, social unrest and alienation from friends and allies abroad.

The only thing missing from the Clinton campaign thus far is the nuclear option. Lyndon Johnson charged that Barry Goldwater was going to blow up the world. Literally. Johnson's "Daisy" commercial counts down to a mushroom cloud.

Somewhere in the bowels of Clinton headquarters, a smart young thing is working on a modern version. Look for it on a TV near you.


Charles Krauthammer, who has won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary, writes for the Washington Post.

Editorial on 06/27/2016

Print Headline: Hillaryism


Comments on: Hillaryism

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 total comments

WhododueDiligence says... June 27, 2016 at 9:28 a.m.

Howling at Hillary for moving toward the future, Krauthammer looks toward the past:
"Haven't we been here before? All those shovel-ready infrastructure projects to be funded by Obama's $830 billion stimulus? Where did all the money go?"
If Krauthammer would take a 5-minute break from hounding Hillary, he could look it up.
Nearly $300 billion went to tax cuts to help keep individuals and companies out of bankruptcy. In addition, nearly $90 billion of Medicaid funds went to the states and $54 billion went to local school districts across the US to relieve pressure on state and local taxes during the crisis of the Great Recession, the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. A relatively modest $48 billion was spent on transportation infrastructure including $28 billion on roads and bridges. During the election year of 2008 and into 2009, private-sector job layoffs were accelerating at an alarming rate, and job losses would likely have been considerably worse if not for that stimulus package in early 2009.

( | suggest removal )

ARMNAR says... June 27, 2016 at 9:34 a.m.

Why not just print "Krauthammer hates Hillary" in place of his column and use the freed-up space to bring the comic "For Better or For Worse" back to the DoG?

I still remember why the strip was dropped...and it's a pretty embarrassing reason for the paper.

( | suggest removal )

DoubleBlind says... June 27, 2016 at 11:39 a.m.

Anyone still on the fence re Clinton vs. Trump needs to pay attention to the massive fallout from the Brexit vote last week in the UK. It has decimated markets globally. That's exactly what will happen if Trump is elected. US will be ground zero for another massive selloff. We can all wave goodbye to whatever little may be left in our retirement accounts on Nov 9th. If Trump wins, everyone else loses.

( | suggest removal )

carpenterretired says... June 27, 2016 at 10:28 p.m.

Krauthammer's buddy George Will recently went so far south on Trump that he left the GOP ,but will Krauthammer be able to hold his nose long enough to hang in with Trump?

( | suggest removal )

Dontsufferfools says... June 27, 2016 at 11:48 p.m.

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."
George W. Bush.
Miss him?

( | suggest removal )

  • page
  • 1
Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.





Top Picks - Mobile App
Arkansas Online