Hillary’s Next

“I am very much concerned about the direction of our country. And it’s not just who runs for office, but what they do when they get there and how we bring people together and, particularly, empower young people so we can tackle these hard decisions,” Hillary Clinton recently said, when asked if she’d run for President in 2016.

Clinton’s statement implies that she dislikes the present direction of our country. Politically, that direction has been set by Barack Obama and the mostly Democratic Congress — with a fully Democratic agenda — for the last 5-6 years.

Is there something about that agenda she dislikes? If so, what is it — and why? It would be really interesting to hear a straight answer to this question. Of course, she will never be asked, not by most of the media, because the media people who fawn over her only care about having “a woman President.”

How things have changed from the start of the nation Clinton now (you had better believe) fully intends to preside over in a couple of years.

In watching the television series John Adams (based on the book by David McCullough), I’m reminded of how different the issues were at the time the United States was founded.

Of course there was no debate about a “woman President” or a “black President” back then, because neither option was conceivable at that time.

But they didn’t debate about whether we need a “light haired” or “dark haired” President, either. They didn’t worry about whether the President was tall, or short. Genetic factors were not the key consideration. In other words: They did not focus on irrelevancies, on non-essentials.

Instead, they focused on such things as, “What’s the best way to secure individual liberties?” and, “How can a government with separation of powers really function?” Or: “How can we keep the United States from turning into a democratic version of a dictatorship?”

Today, it seems as if all questions have been settled. The form of government we’re to have, it appears, is based on wealth redistribution, social insurance programs, and endlessly accelerating deficit spending based on a national debt financed by our politically manipulated currency into infinity (or collapse, whichever comes first). A few complain about it, but nobody offers any principled or specific opposition to it.

Policies or principles no longer appear to matter. Only the flavor of the month does. Last month’s flavor was, “Oh, cool, we’ve got a black President.” Did he work out very well? Nobody’s prepared to call the Obama presidency a success, from what I can see. But no matter. Let’s go on to the next flavor. “Oh, please, Hillary, please run. Let’s have a woman President. Now that would be really cool.”

Forget your political views, if you even have any. Watch the beautifully executed John Adams and ask yourself if the courage and honest risk-taking of those early leaders even remotely resembles the mafia-like characters we allow to bribe us with unearned freebies and goodies in exchange for satisfying their lust for high office today.

Which brings us back to the substance of Hillary Clinton’s remark. If she thinks the direction of our country is wrong, what is it about that direction she opposes, and why?

Does she think we should reduce taxes, or increase them? Obama has steadily increased them. But she doesn’t like our direction. Would she reduce America’s corporate tax rate, the highest in the world? Or how about capital gains tax rates? Her husband did that much.

What about spending? Obama has cut defense spending to pre-World War II levels. By some accounts, he’s gradually dismantling our military. Does that trend disturb her? Would she increase defense spending, not for interventionist wars but merely self-defense?

The “Affordable Care Act” was essentially the implementation of Clinton’s own version of socialized medicine that failed to pass in Congress back when her husband was President. Does she now have second thoughts about government intervention in medicine? If not, then what precisely does she object to about our current direction? Health care has been a central issue, and certainly seems a part of our present “direction.”

It seems incredibly unlikely, given all her viewpoints expressed over the years, that Hillary Clinton would have any objection at all to the policies of Barack Obama and the mostly compliant Congress of his presidency. So where’s her objection?

Maybe Obama has not gone far enough for her. Maybe she’s angry or disappointed that “Cap and Trade,” the government takeover of the entire energy supply of the nation, has not yet passed. Maybe she wants health care to push over into a single-payer (Communistic) system all at once, rather than going through the pitiful slow motion of the Obamacare torture. Maybe she wants even higher tax rates. Maybe she wants even more forceful and unconstitutional executive edicts than Obama already foists daily on what’s left of the private sector. Maybe she likes FCC “researchers” invading private news rooms, but wants to take this further.

She said she wants to “empower” young people to make “hard decisions.” Which decisions, about what — and why? And empower by what means? When the Founders of the United States sought to empower people, it was to ensure they were left alone — by the government as much as by criminals. When a politician of Clinton’s party, in particular, talks about empowering, it almost always means with other people’s money, property or lives.

In another 2-3 years, we’ll all likely have a chance to find out just what she means. It doesn’t take rocket science, nor even ESP, to imagine what those policies will be. The only difference? You’ll be called a sexist rather than a racist when you make the case for individual freedom over the collectivism of our time.

Be sure to “friend” Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest.