How will/would President Hillary Clinton govern?

How will/would President Hillary Clinton govern? October 21, 2016

Just something for open discussion.

Will she be a pragmatist, and hold to her promise of working with Republicans in Congress in a bipartisan fashion?

Arguments in favor:  it’s got to be hugely important to her that she “go down in history” as better than her husband, and she knows that, due to a favorable alignment of circumstances (among other things, the good fortune of being able to draw down the military with the “peace dividend” and produce a surplus), her husband will be remembered as pretty successful, so that’s quite a challenge.

Arguments against:  she doesn’t actually have a track record of bipartisanship.  Oh, sure, you can say that it’s only because Republicans have decided from the start that she’s Evil Incarnate, and I am not going to dig into this now, but it’s clear that there is so much animosity that it’s just hard to fathom successful negotiations, no matter what her “private position” may be on an issue.

Consider that the lesson from Obamacare ought to be that this sort of massive legislation ought to be done with the sort of bipartisan support that ensures that, when fixes are needed, there is a bipartisan willingness to fix it.

The lesson the left draws from Obamacare is quite different:  “it should have been single-payer, and only misguided attempts to compromise meant that it wasn’t.  If it had been single-payer that won the day (or a “public option”), we wouldn’t need any legislative fixes now.  This just means that we should go for broke in the future, with whatever legislative program we want to enact.”

What does she want to be remembered for?  Does she want to be remembered, in vague terms, as someone who governed at a time of peace and prosperity?  Or does she want to be remembered as someone who made Big Changes, as an equivalent to FDR’s New Deal?  She herself is speaking in grandiose terms of the “biggest jobs program since World War II,” as well as her daycare, family leave, and free college proposals.

Or, alternatively, does she not really care about much beyond January 20th, so long as she’s reached that goal of winning the election?  Will she reach that point, and realize, “oh, c***, I’d rather be taking a nap, or, really, doing anything else besides sitting in another meeting”?

And we’re learning from the Podesta e-mails, and before that, from the FOIA-released e-mails that she simply is not as active or engaged, in her campaign or as Secretary of State, as her husband was two decades ago.  Will any talk of “her” governance really mean the governing style of Abedin and Mills and her other top staff, in the same way as Valerie Jarrett is reported to control much of what’s happening with Obama’s actions?

But — on the assumption that the House stays in control of the Republicans — her agenda is largely a legislative one.  It is hard to imagine — though I’m sure someone might find a way — the programs she’s promised being implemented without legislation, with the exception of her plans for Syria and the Mideast, I suppose, and her pledge to provide legal residency for as many illegal immigrants as she possibly can.

And the Republicans?  Seems to me there’s a very good chance that there won’t be a single “Republican caucus” to negotiate with.  Oh, sure, there’ll be a Republican Party from which committee heads are drawn, and a Speaker of the House and so on, but I doubt these leaders will be able to adequately, well, lead, in any sort of negotiations, and the infighting between Tea Party and mainstream Republicans about who’s being a sellout vs. inappropriately intransigent, will seem seem like minor squabbles.  At the same time, there will likely be enough Republicans willing to sign off on amnesty, but, on the other hand, even in prior attempts, the numbers were always there, until they had to face constituents back home.

Your thoughts?


Browse Our Archives