The Main Criticism Against Hillary

Published by

Clarissa

October 27, 2015

We also know that the main criticism against Hillary is that her positions change with the polls, and that she is not a person of substance. I do not agree with that completely, but I would be lying if I did not admit that it was reason for concern.

People are freaks. This is the best thing about Hillary, and they are whining about it.

The last thing a politician needs to have is opinions of her or his own. A politician’s job is to promote the voters’ beliefs. The job description doesn’t involve foisting one’s own substance on the people whose interests you are supposed to represent. If you go into politics, remove all of your substance and fill the resulting void with the wishes of the voters.

Do those who moan about Hillary’s willingness to change her opinions in order to please the voters prefer politicians who know that an overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want the government to shut down, do want stricter gun regulations, do want abortion rights, and do want higher taxes for the very rich, yet advocate for the exact opposite because of their stupid, redundant, and needless principles?

I mean, if I support a politician, s/he better stick all those personal preferences up his or her anal cavity and represent me. Because that’s the whole point of representative democracy.

Rate this:

6 responses to “The Main Criticism Against Hillary”

Clarissa

October 27, 2015

From Stringer Bell:

While the practice of changing positions is an admirable intellectual exercise, it does represent a political liability.

If you keep changing your positions it’s very hard to convince others that you’ll fight hard on that particular issue once you get in power. I mean, how could you? Just two years ago you were a passionate gun nut and now you seem to be so passionately anti-gun (to use one example).

How confident will a pro-gun-control voter will be that Hillary will spend political capital on this issue (vs so many other issues on her agenda) once she gets in power? Wouldn’t the perception be that she’ll more likely give in to the opposition?

Nobody doubts Sanders will fight hard for income inequality if he becomes President (he may fail, but that’s beside the point), but I roll my eyes at Clinton when she says she cares about the middle class and despises wall street excesses. Both of them are just talking but one seems believable, the other one not quite.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  October 27, 2015
  
  Oh, I agree that she doesn’t care and doesn’t despise. But she will bust her ass because she will want to get reelected. Of course, it’s up to the voters to keep up the pressure and not relax and go home.
  
  I remember when Obama was elected, every issue of The Nation was filled with nothing but long wish lists of what he should do. But that was followed by very little activism aimed at pressuring him into doing it. And as you know, his first term was kind of a waste of time. Now, in the second term, he finally had to start working at delivering on his promises, at least to an extent.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Stringer Bell
    
    October 27, 2015
    
    Agreed totally about the reelection.
    
    4 year term. 1 year long primaries, another year or more to plan and raise money for it. Basically you’re in campaign mode the moment you get into office. What a farce.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      October 27, 2015
      
      What’s really shocking is that Canadians started their electoral campaign later than the US but they already held the election, everything has been decided, the country is MOVING THE FUCK ON. And here we are stuck in election mode until forever.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Stringer Bell
        
        October 27, 2015
        
        Oh, it’s disgusting.
        
        Like, Clinton couldn’t make a speech in 2012 without the media going crazy about ‘SHOTS FIRED! OH IS SHE THINKING ABOUT 2016? HMMMM? WHAT DO YOU THINK, TV PANEL?
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
Dreidel

October 27, 2015

“Of course, it’s up to the voters to keep up the pressure and not relax and go home.”

The problem is that once a President is elected, there’s very little in the American system that voters can do to apply pressure to keep campaign promises. An elected President is in for four years unless he/she dies in office or gets forced out (which happened exactly once). The U.S. has no option to remove a President with a “vote of no confidence.”

Bill Clinton basically ignored his voters’ wishes in his first term, and changed course ONLY after he was rocked on his heels by the 1994 mid-term elections, and knew that he wouldn’t get re-elected if he didn’t.

Stringer Bell is right: You could depend on a true-believer like Sanders to fight against income inequality if elected — but would he really fight for more gun control (his heart doesn’t seem in it), or would Hillary fight for a number of issues she panders to but obviously doesn’t really care about?

In our rigid two-party system (which I think is preferable to parliamentary systems because it keeps the crazy fringe parties out of the government), you basically have to vote for the major party that you think will disappoint you the least.

LikeLike

Reply

Clarissa's Blog