Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 1 Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

As Republicans Defect, Will Clinton Be Tempted To Tack Right?

By       Message Richard Eskow       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   3 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 1   News 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 8/6/16

Author 77715
Become a Fan
  (14 fans)
- Advertisement -

Reprinted from Campaign For America's Future

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
(Image by Gage Skidmore)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

The sense of panic among elite Republicans is palpable. They're beginning to understand that when they look at Donald Trump they're staring into the orange-hued face of their party's potential demise.

- Advertisement -

The GOP defections to Team Hillary were already well underway by the time of last week's Democratic National Convention, which featured endorsement speeches from billionaire ex-mayor Michael Bloomberg and other Republicans.

Since then Hewlett-Packard executive and former Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has come out for Clinton. So has Republican-leaning hedge fund billionaire Seth Karman and Republican Congressman Richard Hanna. A CNN poll showed that nearly one in four self-identified conservative voters said they would support Clinton over Trump.

From a tactical point of view, it makes sense for Clinton to welcome their support. But it poses a dangerous temptation for her -- especially when, as is the case with Bloomberg, Whitman, and Klarman, it presumably comes with buckets full of campaign cash. She may see this support as a mandate to form something like a unity government with Republicans, a call to tack right toward the failed "centrism" and "bipartisanship" of the past several decades.

- Advertisement -

That would be a tragic error, but it would it follow a well-worn groove in recent American politics.

"Bipartisanship," in this context, is the notion that government works best when corporate-backed politicians from both parties get together behind closed doors and decide what's best for the country. The "bipartisan" ideology gave rise to Washington's long obsession with deficit reduction at the expense of more pressing concerns. It nearly led to a cut in Social Security benefits, which would have been disastrous for millions of seniors, disabled people, and children. It is responsible for the government spending cuts that, as economist Robert Scott explains, have been largely responsible for the weakness and slow pace of our current recovery.

This ideology has failed -- but it hasn't died. Consider the comments made this week former President George W. Bush, who implicitly condemned Trump by speaking out against what he called "isolationism, nativism and protectionism."

Bush was right to condemn nativism, of course. But what he (and other "centrist" insiders) consider "isolationism," many Americans would consider a prudent reluctance toward military adventurism. The "bipartisan" consensus that Clinton shared brought us Bush's disastrous war in Iraq and the current chaos in Libya and Syria.

And when Bush talks about "protectionism," he's really defending the disastrous "bipartisan" trade deals supported by Democratic and Republican administrations alike -- including Bill Clinton's, Barack Obama's, and his own.

Then there's New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Friedman's not always wrong: he supports infrastructure spending and green jobs. But in his latest column he tosses out political cliches like confetti in his zeal to flack the failed bipartisan approach of the past.

- Advertisement -

Friedman complains that the Democratic convention failed to honor "the people who drive our economy by inventing things or by borrowing money to start companies that actually employ people."

Friedman's language regurgitates the right-wing myth of the "job creator." That's getting it exactly backward. In a healthy and stable economy, it is people who generate prosperity for businesses, not the other way around, by increasing demand for their goods and services. And in a struggling economy like this one, government spending is especially important.

Economic inequality stifles growth. So when Friedman says "I would much rather grow our pie bigger and faster and better adjust the slices then redivide a shrinking one," he shows that he's failed to learn the lessons of the last 30 years.

Friedman also complains that there is "anti-bank sentiment" within the Democratic Party. That assertion would astonish the hundreds of thousands of defrauded homeowners who have yet to see one of their lawbreaking tormentors sent to jail under the current Democratic administration.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Well Said 1   News 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Host of 'The Breakdown,' Writer, and Senior Fellow, Campaign for America's Future

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

How to Fix the Fed: Dismiss Dimon, Boot the Bankers, and Can the Corporations

The Top 12 Political Fallacies of 2012

Pawn: The Real George Zimmerman Story

What America Would Look Like If Libertarians Got Their Way

"F" The Bureaucracy! The White House Can Help Homeowners Right Now

"His Own Man's" Man: Jeb Bush and the Return of Wolfowitz