Anyone watching Hillary Clinton's announcement last weekend had to be unimpressed. Her glossy, pre-made video announcement looked more like a grocery store ad than something a future President would endorse. The ad, and her subsequent stumbling campaign stops in Iowa, should have the party worried. Her campaign so far has reflected the same shortcomings that would be reflected in her presidency. She has been slow to the process, unprepared, elitist, unimaginative and ultimately ineffective.
The arguments for Mrs. Clinton's candidacy are unpersuasive. One of the most prevalent arguments can be easily dispatched. The idea that "it's time for a woman" reflects an outdated mode of thinking that is better left in the past. Mrs. Clinton's gender no more qualifies her to be President than does Marco Rubio's. A vote based on gender, race, age or any other inherent physical trait reflects poorly on the voter. We are better than that as a nation and I suspect that most voters will be turned off by that argument.
Mrs. Clinton's true qualifications are her Senate term and her record as Secretary of State. Mrs. Clinton, however, unlike the former junior Senator from Illinois, has a record for us to evaluate. Unfortunately, that record is, at best, unremarkable. At worst, it demonstrates a lack of competence. As a Senator, she voted for the Iraq war, the renewal of the U.S.A. Patriot Act and did very little to advance the causes she purportedly champions. As Secretary of State, she misjudged Vladimir Putin, who later invaded and annexed Crimea, she misjudged the terrorist threat in Libya, which later led to the deaths of our ambassador and three other Americans, and she presided over the worst disintegration of order in the Middle East since the birth of Islam. Then, of course, there is the fact that she used a private email system to circumvent federal record keeping laws. To say that those are "achievements" is an example of Doublespeak that would make George Orwell blush.
If it's time for anything, then it's time for competence. Period. Glitzy campaign ads, vacuous statements of intent from inexperienced partisans, and the use of "spin" to gloss over massive policy failures have done great damage to our country. The challenges we face are complex. The economy has only marginally improved, even after eight years of liberal policies designed to improve income inequality. Real wages have remained level, health care costs are still too high and our foreign policy has been ineffective, to say the least. Mrs. Clinton wants a coronation, but here are four potential candidates that have demonstrated competence, and would be excellent alternatives.
Evan Bayh
Evan Bayh is at the top of the list. Mr. Bayh served as a two term governor of Indiana before serving two terms as a United States Senator. While governor, Mr. Bayh demonstrated exceptional effectiveness. He was known as fiscally conservative, leaving tax rates largely unchanged, and he reformed government programs to be lean and efficient. He left the state with the largest budget surplus in history and one comparatively larger than any other state. He promoted "welfare to work," significantly increased employment in the state, and left office with an 80% approval rating.
As a Senator, Mr. Bayh was known as a centrist, and worked across the aisle to promote bi-partisan legislation. His pragmatic approach to governing stood in stark contrast to the partisanship that has plagued the government for more than a decade.
Senator Bayh now appears on Fox News Sunday with some regularity as an analyst. His analysis is measured, respectful and thoughtful. He was considered a strong potential candidate in 2008, but he decided not to run. Insiders say that the partisan tone of the last two years of the Bush administration soured him to politics. In my opinion, that's exactly the kind of leader we need. A person who reluctantly accepts power is more likely to be deserving of it.
Jerry Brown
If you just can't stomach a centrist, there's always Jerry Brown. While I disagree with almost everything Governor Brown does, he has been reasonably effective as California's governor. He was first elected in 1974 and served two terms. He left politics for several decades only to run again and win a third term in 2010. Since his election, Governor Brown has substantially reduced California's budget deficit, reformed the utilities, guided the state through a credit crisis, and improved the environment.
Governor Brown is a partisan, but he's not a firebrand. His leadership style is pedestrian, calm and he has been effective in gathering bi-partisian support (when necessary) to improve his state. The California economy has undoubtedly enjoyed one of the largest rebounds since 2008. Even if Governor Brown cannot take credit for all of that, he certainly can take some credit for largely staying out of the way.
California is an important state. There is no doubt that he could raise plenty of money for the general election, and his decades of executive experience would be attractive to voters seeking a competent President.
Terry McAuliffe
If you prefer a party insider, then Terry McAuliffe would be a good pick. McAuliffe is currently the governor of Virgina. He was the Chairman of the Democratic Party for four years and ran Bill Clinton's re-relection campaign. Before politics, he was a successful entrepreneur and corporate executive. As Governor, he has demonstrated an ability to work in a bi-partisan way to pass meaningful legislation. He is an advocate for Democratic policies, but he is not considered an ideologue.
McAuliffe has proven that he is able to raise substantial money for Democratic candidates. His own candidacy would be well-funded. He is not the flashiest choice, but does reflect a good, experienced compromise between the two wings of the party.
Joe Manchin
Senator Manchin may be unpalatable to the left wing of the Democratic Party, but he has demonstrated competence as both a Governor and a Senator. As Governor of West Virginia, Manchin was known as a champion of the ordinary citizen. His populist approach to governing raised wages in the state while strongly advocating for the businesses that provided those jobs. He is one of the most popular politicians in the history of his state, gaining support from both Republicans and Democrats.
Before getting into politics, Senator Manchin ran his family's third generation business. He is a grounded politician who is known for challenging ineffective policies and bad legislation. While he ultimately supports the Democratic platform, he also works in a pragmatic way to improve the platform where permitted.
There is no doubt that Senator Manchin would be mercilessly attacked by the left wing of his party. His conservative positions on taxes, guns and spending, while popular nationwide, are not generally accepted in the Democratic Party. There is also no doubt, however, that Manchin would be a competent President.
No comments:
Post a Comment