gracchusdixit

There are many reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton, not the least of which is that she would, even on the worst of days, be infinitely preferable to any of the odious candidates running for the Republican Presidential nomination.  That said, the case Clinton is trying to make for herself—and against her opponent Bernie Sanders—is flimsy at best and ultimately damaging to her prospects of becoming the Democratic nominee.

That case rests on three arguments:

(1) That she is the more experienced of the two candidates and therefore more qualified to be President.

(2) That she is more electable than Bernie Sanders, in part because “Americans will never vote for a socialist”.

(3) That she is more pragmatic, can “reach across the aisle,” and will therefore be able to get things done, the implication being that Sanders is an airy-minded and stubborn ideologue who will accomplish nothing.

The problem is that none of these arguments holds up under even the slightest scrutiny.  Indeed, they are mere assertions, scarcely qualifying as arguments at all.

First of all, and as a simple matter of fact, Hillary Clinton does not have “more experience” than Bernie Sanders.  The opposite is true.  She spent two terms in the United States Senate and four years as Secretary of State, for a total of 16 years in public office.  She has run for election office three times, not counting this election, and won twice.  Sanders spent four terms as a mayor, eight as a Congressmen, and two as a Senator, for a total of 37 years in public office.  He has competed in 15 elections, winning 14.  Although Hillary Clinton is a supremely intelligent and accomplished person with innumerable assets, “more experience” in public life isn’t one of them.

She does, to be sure, have more experience in foreign affairs by dint of her time as Secretary of State.  Some believe that she was a success in that role, while others claim that she was a failure.  The only fair verdict is that her record is mixed.  On the other side of the ledger, her legislative experience and accomplishments are indisputably more limited than those of Sanders.  More about which in a moment.

The second argument—that Clinton is more electable—is groundless.  In virtually every poll, matched against virtually every conceivable Republican candidate, Clinton barely wins or loses outright.  Sanders, on the other hand, trounces nearly every potential Republican opponent.  What’s more, his approval ratings are far better than hers, which aren’t very good at all and, given her many years in the public eye, aren’t likely to improve.

Polls, of course, are not elections.  It is possible—indeed probable—that voter intentions will change before the election takes place and will change more than once.  There is no reason, however, to presume that attitudes toward Clinton will strengthen whereas those toward Sanders will inevitably weaken.  Whatever may happen in the future, the polls are the only evidence we have at present.  Based on that evidence, it is absurd to claim that Hillary Clinton is more electable than the Senator from Vermont.

As to assertion that “Americans will never vote for a socialist,” the only reasonable response is:  who knows?  The last time Americans actually had a chance to vote for a socialist was 1920.  A scant three years after the Russian Revolution, that socialist got three percent of the vote.  Today, almost a century later, 47 percent of Americans say they would be prepared to vote for another socialist—which is about the same number of people who say they are prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Finally, there is Clinton’s attempt to draw a line in the sand between her own “pragmatic realism” and what she insinuates to be the “impractical idealism” of her opponent.  Clinton is not alone in making this insinuation; she has been joined by virtually every power-broker in the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama, though the President has been careful to avoid taking sides in an explicit way.

The problem, once again, is that the evidence for this assertion is non-existent.

Clinton’s first adventure in “pragmatic realism” on the national stage famously occurred in 1993, when she became her husband’s point person in an attempt to revamp and reform our dysfunctional health care system.  That attempt failed so spectacularly that the country had to wait 17 years for another Democratic President to give it a go.

In Congress, Hillary Clinton was a Democratic Senator from one of the largest states in the country.  She served on four permanent committees and chaired none.   Bernie Sanders, an Independent from one of the smallest states in the country, serves on five committees, is the chairman of one and the ranking minority member of another.  Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored about 3,000 bills or amendments.  Sanders has sponsored or co-sponsored nearly 7,000.  Indeed, Sanders has perfected the art of attaching bi-partisan amendments to major legislation, enabling him to get dozens of progressive measures through an overwhelmingly conservative Congress, one small, pragmatic step at a time.

If the ultimate definition of “pragmatism” is results, then Hillary Clinton’s claim to be more pragmatic than Bernie Sanders falls a bit short.

All that aside, Clinton’s argument that she will be able to get more done if elected President is nothing but a red herring.  The ultimate truth is that neither Clinton nor Sanders is going to have an easy time dealing with the Congress that is elected in November.  The Democrats have a decent chance of regaining ground in the Senate but no chance at all of winning a majority in the House until the next Census in 2020 allows Congressional boundaries to be redrawn.  Either candidate will therefore face a hostile House of Representatives.

Republicans will oppose the policy proposals of a President Sanders—that is certain.  But they will loathe the very idea of a President Clinton.  Having seen them do everything in their power to humiliate and eviscerate Barack Obama, why do we imagine they will do anything less to Hillary Clinton?  Indeed, members of the tea party have already declared war on her, threatening to begin impeachment proceedings the moment she takes the oath of office.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lawyer by training and by all accounts a very good one.  If she wants to defeat Bernie Sanders and win the nomination, she’s going to have to come up with a more convincing case.