Abdullah Ahmed examines whether Hillary Clinton is actually a neo-conservative masquerading as a "progressive that gets things done".
IN THE WAKE of her decisive "Super Tuesday" victory over Bernie Sanders, the path to the Democratic presidential nomination seems all but assured for Hillary Clinton.
After all, it was highly unlikely that the 74-year-old Jewish socialist calling for a political revolution could take down one the most powerful political families in America. But Hillary is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Despite sounding hopelessly rehearsed and scripted on the campaign trail, there is a far more troubling issue with Hillary’s candidacy. In the words of consumer advocate and five-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader, Hillary is a “deep corporatist and deep militarist.” She claims that she is a “progressive that gets things done.” The truth is that Hillary is not even a progressive at all.
It is obvious to all people, whether conservative or progressive, that money has a corrupting influence on politics. It is an instance of true bi-partisan agreement with 84 per cent of respondents in a New York Times poll agreeing that money has “too much” influence in politics. Yet in the constitutional law case Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court of the United States disagreed.
In a true perversion of justice, a group of unelected lawyers gave a carte blanche to corporations to tighten their grip on the political economy of the United States. Without getting into too much esoteric legal jargon, the judicial reasoning is as follows:
- That corporations are people
- That as people corporations have first amendment rights
- That giving unlimited money to political candidates is a form of free speech protected by the first amendment
- Therefore, corporations are able to give unlimited money to political candidates
This ruling is destroying American democracy. In 2014, a Princeton study found that:
'economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.'
It makes perfect sense that politicians do the bidding of those who pay them.
So who pays Hillary?
According to opensecrets.org, over Hillary’s political career, her top five campaign contributors have been Emily’s List, Citigroup, DLA Piper, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co. When questioned about her ties to Wall Street, in a complete non sequitur, Hillary brought up 9/11. Political question dodging of the most abjectly miserable kind.
Furthermore, between 2013 and 2015, Hillary gave three paid speeches to Goldman Sachs executives and was reportedly paid a total of $675,000. When questioned about releasing the transcript of her speeches, she flatly refused. What could she possibly have to hide?
Many pro-Hillary pundits and commentators point towards her extensive experience in foreign affairs and say that she will be ready to be the Commander-in-Chief on day one. Hillary does have a lot of experience in foreign affairs. She was, after all, Secretary of State for four years. But a lack of experience is not her problem. It is her basic philosophy that is wrong. Hillary believes in the neoconservative philosophy of foreign intervention.
She voted for the Iraq War in 2002. Needless to say, the war was an utter disaster. There were no WMDs and it left thousands of soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands of soldiers with physical disabilities and mental illness, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, a destabilisation of the Middle East which led to the rise of ISIS and huge deficits in the United States for which future generations will have to pay. Not only is this an unforgiveable crime but Hillary has not even learned her lesson.
During her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary was a strong supporter of toppling Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi. Now, some say that Gadaffi was his own flavour of authoritarian despotism, although this is contestable. But one thing is beyond all reasonable doubt: he kept a lid on sectarian violence and terrorism. With him gone, Libya has descended into a chaotic failed state, with a total disintegration of the state institutions and violent extremism run amok.
Just recently in the Democratic presidential debates, Hillary proposed a no-fly zone in Syria. Thankfully, the Munich talks led to a cessation of hostilities and to some extent, resolved the issue. But again it is a manifestation of Hillary’s neoconservative foreign policy philosophy. A no-fly zone in Syria would have meant that Hillary would order the shooting down of Russian planes in an area were they are already flying. An arrogant, aggressive and foolish move.
Has Hillary ever met a war or military intervention she didn’t love?
The excitement over a viable female presidential candidate is understandable — but Hillary is not the young and idealistic public interest lawyer she once was. Her recent career demonstrates an obeisance to corporate power and an eagerness for war. It is astonishing the extent to which Democratic voters continue to be hoodwinked. When will they wake up?
You can follow Abdullah Ahmed on Twitter @AAhmed_95.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
Monthly Donation
Single Donation
Be informed. Subscribe to IA for just $5.
