Small warning: this post represents the views of Ames, and probably Tim. But, it doesn’t represent a new contributor we’ve just added.
For years, I’ve defended Hillary Clinton as a good Democrat, worthy to be the next President. While I still think she’s better than McCain, she has entirely lost my vote for the primaries. Watch this YouTube clip to see why:
I recently posted about the tendency of American politicians to, when confronted with proof that their policies are wrong, decry the “experts” as “elitist” and stick to their guns on principle, seemingly arguing that objective reality is subject to their votes or vetoes. I have attributed this tendency more often to conservative politicians hoping to spin away the truth, and also leveled the accusation at creationists, the world’s most egregious factual relativists. Well, not so, or at least not exclusively. Now Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of those who attribute well founded expert opinion to the “elites,” in an effort to dispel it.A summary. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are for suspending the $0.184 federal tax on gasoline for the duration of the summer, as a bit of a “thank you” to the American voter, and a bit of a “screw you” to the American deficit. While no economists think this is a good idea, Hillary disagrees. Not on principle or on logic, mind you: rather, she objects on the grounds that the “elites” somehow don’t know what’s best for the American economy. Why, Hillary?
I think we’ve been for the last seven years seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven’t worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans… I’m not going to put in my lot with economists.
Wrong on both counts. First, America needs to get past the idea that our principles of universal equality and “anti-elitism” somehow entitle us to ignore facts. And second, Hillary’s little speech on elitism, far from being the opposite of the Bush administration, replicates the administration’s own integral failings – that is, the tendency to subordinate reason and facts to emotion, jingoism, pageantry, and politics. At least someone recognizes how ridiculous this is.
We need a Democrat in office. And we need a candidate who will fight dirty and play the spin game. But if our candidate will “fight dirty” by making Bush’s mistakes all over again, the price is too high.
Yes, I heard about this incident. It saddened me, that’s for sure.
I believe she was pandering to the anti-intellectuals out there in an attempt to pull in some crossover voters who might not want to vote for McCain.
Or it’s entirely possible that she was just pulling something out of her derrier to defend a bad position.
Hopefully she realized how stupid it was as soon as she said it and won’t repeat that mistake in the future. We hope.
Posted by Donovan | May 6, 2008, 6:03 pmHillary has been a populist for a long time, or at least pretended to be one. She learned the craft in Arkansas, perfected it in Washington and has used it to get herself this far. Ironic for someone who attended Welsley and Yale.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | May 6, 2008, 6:40 pmI don’t think populism requires ignoring reality. Sadly she seems to disagree :-(
Posted by Ames | May 6, 2008, 6:44 pmUsing populism in politics requires a certain ‘poetic license’ with the truth.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | May 6, 2008, 6:46 pm“And we need a candidate who will fight dirty and play the spin game. But if our candidate will “fight dirty” by making Bush’s mistakes all over again, the price is too high.”
LOL! Well, somehow you don’t think you can be accused of not having any principles or values if you never claimed them in the first place.
By all means, lets have Hillary and Obama continue fighiting dirty and spinning away the cause of the gas prices. No drilling our own and no refineries to make the privately held ones we have left to manipulate the prices.
Please, keep this rhetoric up and I can almost guarantee you’ll have your own daily bag limit.
Posted by Winghunter | May 6, 2008, 9:33 pmTerribly racist blog you have there, Wing.
Posted by Ames | May 8, 2008, 6:56 pmIt would be nice to have a politician tell the truth and stop pandering.
Not going to hold my breath though.
Posted by goesdownbitter | May 31, 2008, 11:45 amI would like to hear a straight answer from a presidential candidate on how they’re going to pay the national debt, if not through taxes. No smoke-and-mirrors about “growing the economy” by cutting taxes; that way lies more federal debt, the temporary illusion of prosperity, and our current situation.
Are there any credible economists out there who maintain that massive federal debt is a good thing?
Hillary is sure that oil prices are due in part to non-market forces. She’s going to “go after” the oil companies – a statement that is pandering in itself.
Even if oil companies are manipulating the market, the same market forces will get them in the end if we find ways to lower demand for oil. But for some people, conservation is the one thing they just won’t do for their country. Move closer to work? Combine trips? Make better car choices? Ride a bike? Socialism!
Could a candidate have “economics education in high school” as part of their platform?
Posted by gawiman | June 1, 2008, 11:21 am