No, this post is not actually about Hillary Clinton's flip-flops (for the record, I don't think she would be caught dead in a pair of those shoes), but rather her changing opinions about certain key issues. Brooks brings this issue up in his article, "Hillary Clinton's Opportunist Solution!" in which he criticizes Clinton for "do[ing] whatever she needs to do, say[ing] whatever needs to be said and fight[ing] for whatever constituency is most useful at the moment."
While Brooks acknowledges that Clinton may have experienced a genuine change of heart about some things, he concludes that she has flip-flopped too many times about issues that are too important to her constituency for it to be a coincidence. For example, Clinton used to oppose gay marriage, but changed her mind right around the time that it became a hot topic for Democrats. She has also switched from supporting what she once called "the gold standard in trade agreements" to now vehemently opposing it.
As a voter considering candidates in the Democratic party, this worries me. I understand that it can be hard to reconcile your true beliefs with what the party wants (especially as both parties become more radical in nature). A good candidate has to be able to win a strong base and then in the general election, they have to move towards the center to appease the other party. And Clinton has shown that she is more than capable of swinging.
But, does this make her a good candidate?
Even if you agree with what Clinton is (currently) supporting, how can you guarantee that she will act on her campaign promises? This is true for all candidates involved, but Clinton has already shown us an impressive track record of changing her mind.
As Brooks mentions, "The Clinton theory of the campaign seems to be that people vote on the basis of what policy a candidate can deliver...But it could be that voters actually vote on the basis of authenticity and trustworthiness. In that case, Clinton could be hurt by the fact that only 35 percent of, say, Floridians think she is honest and trustworthy."
In an earlier post, I talked about Joe Biden's interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. In it, he projected loyalty, trustworthiness, and respect for the American voter - all things that I think Clinton has failed to demonstrate. Biden, on the other hand, seemed like a good balance. He had the humility and passion of candidate Sanders, but he was more moderate and had more experience. Now with him officially out of the race, Clinton's chances at winning the Democratic primary are significantly higher.
I predict she will pull through the primaries. Sanders has enjoyed popularity with younger generations due to his honesty and ruggedness, but he will not be a good candidate for the general election. No Republican is going to consider voting for someone who self-identifies as a socialist. Webb has dropped out, which leaves O'Malley and Chafee. O'Malley definitely got his name out during the first Democratic debate, but his experience is limited compared to Clinton. As for Chafee, barely anyone noticed he was on the stage.
Clinton currently leads the race and it seems that she will continue to do so. We may just see our first woman president in 2016.
I read this article! It was very interesting because, while I agree with you that flip flopping could indicate a certain degree of flakiness, I also think a smart politician has to change their mind from time to time concerning certain debated issues. If politicians don't do this, we end up with a completely polarized party system (like we have now), wherein its tough to choose a candidate because they are all essentially radicals.
ReplyDeleteThen again, if she's just changing her views as a campaign strategy, I don't think her flip flops are good.
This was very interesting for me because I do not typically consider candidates in the Democratic party. I have heard of the issue of "Hilary's Flip-Flops" so it was nice to see someone talk about it from another point of view. I also agree with the sentiments on O'Malley, as he is the former Governor of my home state.
ReplyDeleteSince I am political science major, this catches my attentions very well! I already knew about how Hillary Clinton's stance on my issues has been changed a lot. I know she opposed gay marriage but she supports it now. However, in my personal experience, stance can be changed. I was raised in Conservative family, and that built my political ideology. However, as I learned by myself, I started to categorize myself as Libertarian rather than conservative. Like me, Hillary Clinton's stance can be changed by external influences. But I agree that Bernie Sanders is far left and no Republican is going to vote for him. Social Democracy is not something American Conservatives including moderate conservatives have valued(since they valued free market system and capitalism). Let's see how Democratic party members choose their candidate! I am very excited!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, love your intro. This topic was something that I found really interesting when we talked about it in gov in high school. It makes sense that a politician would change their stances about some issues as the race gets further along to suit who is paying attention at that point in the race, but I agree that the amount of switching Hillary does is a little worrisome. This is a great thing to consider when we're all headed out to vote.
ReplyDeleteI guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, though.
I, personally, am for Bernie Sanders, but think I would be ok if Hillary Clinton made it to the general elections. It is true that too much flip-flopping, as seems to be the case with Hillary, can cause distrust in her voters. Yet, at the same time it is our representatives responsibility to represent us. So if she has to change a few of her ideas for who she hopes to represent, I think that is only natural.
ReplyDelete