I’d say it goes a little deeper than “a few narrow economic policies”. She’d fit right in to the Republican Party of the 1970s, especially on foreign policy.
Maybe a little bit, she was certainly more hawkish that some current Democrats, but still less so than any of those Republicans (US military interventions post Iraq have obviously been far less robust than those before - were talking about all-out-war back then), and certainly less so than most current Republicans - you might find one or two areas of agreement (e.g. Syria, and even Sanders has been somewhat equivocal when it comes to Syria, and somewhat supportive of bombing campaigns in Afghanistan and Pakistan), but she wouldn’t go as far as they would in most areas, especially with Iran). It’s pointless to compare foreign policy in the 70s to today though, the stakes are nowhere near the same now.
She wouldn’t fit in with them on other issues either, not on social policy, not on health policy, not on education policy, not on criminal justice. Can you name something specific she was proposing that you think would have fit under their policy platforms?
1 Like
Yeah, no. She lived through the '70s, and knew the Republican party then, and didn’t fit in with them then, nor today.
Clinton is more interventionist than a lot of present-day Democrats and leftists like, sure. But if you think she’s in the same category as Kissinger and Nixon and the rest, you are way off the mark. The thing is, Clinton was massively influenced by the Rwanda genocide, and the failure of the international community to act and to intervene; and by the Bosnian War, with its own massacres and ethnic cleansing and rape, and how the NATO intervention in '95 was one of the biggest factors that ended that war.
Young people look at the unbelievable fuck-ups of the Iraq invasion, and the war in Afghanistan (which was largely such a mess because Bush & co. diverted all the attention and resources from it into the Iraq boondoggle), and think that military intervention is inherently terrible and never works out. And a lot of older people have started thinking that, too, after the shitshow that’s been 21st century so far.
But history shows that it can work, when you go in with a clear goal and a clear plan and defined end conditions, and Clinton knows that. And she’s seen the worst-case scenarios of what happens when the world sits by and watches while people are murdered by the thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands. So of course she has a different perspective.
(It’s weird how ingrained this idea that intervention is always bad has become in the American left. People were assuming Bernie Sanders was some kind of a pacifistic anti-interventionist, because it was the Correct Position and thus they ascribed it to him automatically, without looking at his track record.)
4 Likes
So how’s that decimation of Libya working out? And are the ordinary people of Honduras happy with Clinton’s help with “regime change” there?
Clinton has been a good soldier for the ravaging forces of corporate empire. I see no value in shutting our eyes to that and falling for hagiographic idolatry.
8 Likes
Libya has been a big fuck-up, because the aftermath hasn’t been managed. Not poorly managed: not managed at all.
Nobody is saying it didn’t go wrong.
Please tell me again how basically assassinating another country’s non-compliant leader and plunging its society into division and chaos was supposed to go right?
6 Likes
Please tell me what good would have come from letting the massacre go on.
And the only reason it wasn’t managed was because the Libyans refused to agree to a UN peacekeeping force on the ground. But despite all that’s happened there I think the situation in Libya is working out ok, all things considered. It’s been far messier and costly to the Libyans than it needed to be, but once the dust settles the situation there will be far better than what it was before. The problems are nowhere near as intractable as in Syria or Iraq, and the factions there seem to be making some progress in recent months.
1 Like
The United States didn’t assassinate Qaddafi.
Thus the word basically. Libyans wouldn’t have done it if western bombs hadn’t been dropped.
3 Likes
As I’ve said in the past, French diplomacy has been determinant in putting things in motion regarding Libya (officially for humanitarian reasons, but Nicolas Sarkozy likely had his own motivations), but didn’t follow up in handling the aftermath, even though it probably had enough of a network to try and avoid the country’s implosion (again, it’s possible that Sarkozy prefered chaos).
1 Like
Indeed, instead Qadaffi would have kept on assassinating the Libyans.
there, ftfy
I don’t quite follow how the United States is responsible for the Libyans assassinating Qaddafi.
I said western.
Google is your friend, e.g.,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/05/the-dreadful-chronology-of-gaddafis-murder/
Does “western” include the United States?
Who do you suppose Clinton meant by “we”?
1 Like
Since you can’t/won’t directly answer the question, you either mean:
-
“Western” includes the United States, so you’re dissembling when I pointed out the United States is not responsible for the Libyans assassinating Qaddafi, or…
-
“Western” does not include the United States, so you’re bringing up an irrelevant point in the discussion.
Which is it? Please pick one.
Dude, I’m not interested in playing chess with you. Out with it, please. What are you driving at, and what does it have to do with whether Clinton has been a servant of rapacious corporate/state forces, and whether she would have continued being one had she been elected?
2 Likes
