Columnist Jack Davies discusses why voters might want to reconsider voting for Clinton.
Charles de Gaulle once said, “At the root of our civilization, there is the freedom of each person of thought, of belief, of opinion, of work, of leisure.” I utterly believe this, and Donald Trump is currently the greatest threat to the essence of those beliefs. He is still Public Enemy No. 1, so to speak. There are other concerns, however. One of them is the ascendency once again of the corrupt and inauthentic vices possessed in their full richness by one Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton has showed time and time again that she is willing to sacrifice her principles for a chance to grasp at political power. Now there is nothing wrong with a genuine change of heart — if such events were not possible, there would be no reason to host political debates. Indeed, sometimes in certain eras of policy, especially foreign policy, it’s better to be coldly pragmatic and responsive to changes in balances of power so as to ensure international order.
Hillary’s pragmatism shows none of those concerns. In 2008 she openly opposed LGBTQ marriage — now she openly embraces it. In 2008 she staunchly defended her vote to invade Iraq, and in 2014 she called it a mistake. During her tenure in the Obama government, she criticized the president for saying that Pennsylvanians cling to guns and religion and portrayed herself as a friend of the Second Amendment. Now she vows to go further than Obama in using executive orders to institute gun control.
{{tncms-asset app="editorial" id="aa573f1a-987f-11e5-888c-c7f336a33ad1"}}
Now, I’m all for LGBTQ people having the same rights and privileges as other citizens, and I believe that the Neoconservative post-1990 Jacobin attempt to spread liberalism around the world through military force was stupid, wasteful and obnoxious, but the speed at which she embraced those views speaks quite negatively about the likelihood of a genuine conversion.
The most generous possible interpretation of her views is that she is following the positions of the nation and her future constituents. However, that isn’t as good as a position as it sounds. People are elected to public office to fulfill two co-existing functions: one is to represent their constituents and their views, the second is to lend their expertise in affairs of state. It is true that politicians should care a great deal about what their employers (in Western Democracies that’s theoretically you) think, but they are also elected for their beliefs, ideologies and skills.
We vote for someone based on his or her political project, if we like what they believe and feel they are qualified to achieve it. Politicians should have a consistent set of principles to help guide them. They should act on what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. As small-r republican voters, then, we should vote for somebody who is clearly conscientious, qualified and seems to possess a sense of direction, not for someone who seems to be willing to say and do whatever in order to achieve power. Don’t vote for Hillary, vote for someone who has been consistent, someone who you honestly think and deeply believe has the nation’s best interest at heart.
Jack Davies is a sophomore studying philosophy and the Honors Tutorial College Senator for Student Senate. Are you planning to vote for Hillary Clinton? Email him at jd814213@ohio.edu.
