Publisher's Note — March 4, 2016, 11:38 am

Fair-weather Progressive

“Hillary Clinton wasn’t really a progressive, or even a liberal Democrat, until Bernie Sanders decided to run for president.”

A version of this column originally ran in the Toronto Star on February 25, 2016.

By now it’s clear that Bernie Sanders is never really going to attack Hillary Clinton—at least not with the kind of aggressive language that many of his supporters would like to see him use. For whatever reason—tactical, moral, or just ingrained good manners—Sanders has chosen the high ground of policy and argument over the hardline style favored by political consultants.

The only time I’ve noticed Sanders angry enough to hit back decisively at Clinton’s sniping—when she compared him with Republican critics of President Barack Obama—he was characteristically polite: “Madame Secretary,” he said, “that is a low blow.”

Yet Clinton’s misleading claims about herself—particularly her pretensions to being a “progressive” Democrat—beg for a tougher response, no matter how much of a gentleman Sanders wishes to appear. Last week’s Town Hall in Las Vegas was typical. After expressing apparent wonderment that Sanders would criticize her husband or Obama, she declared, “Maybe it’s that Senator Sanders wasn’t really a Democrat until he decided to run for office.”

The remark sounded clever, given Sanders’s claim to being a “socialist” independent. But maybe Hillary Clinton wasn’t really a progressive, or even a liberal Democrat, until Bernie Sanders decided to run for president.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are famously a political couple, an “entry” as it’s known in the vernacular. Their journey from supporters of the antiwar Senators Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern to friends of Wall Street grandees like Roger Altman and Steven Rattner is well documented. Nevertheless, Bill Clinton still does a pretty good impersonation of a progressive—as in his eulogy at Eugene McCarthy’s memorial service. So does Hillary Clinton. But it all rings hollow, since the Clintons long ago accommodated themselves to the money powers rather than fighting them. Scholars of the Clinton years in Arkansas can argue over what the young Governor Clinton was trying to accomplish in a southern state not known for liberal values. But Hillary’s willingness to serve for six years on the board of Walmart while her husband was governor is certainly evidence of a couple intent on advertising its openness to corporate and conservative values.

Once in the White House, the Clintons had a choice of how to launch their new administration. To be fair, Hillary wanted to address health care first, but Bill insisted on NAFTA. Whatever one may think of free trade as a theory, the way the Clintons practiced it has led to a huge industrial dislocation: factory closures all over the country and hundreds of thousands of jobs—Obama claimed “a million”—transferred to cheap labor Mexico.

NAFTA was the beginning of the end for organized labor in the United States, but with the next Clinton trade initiative, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, passed in 2000, U.S. companies raced to “communist” China as if it were the California gold rush. This record does not exactly square with the story of a Clinton couple holding aloft the mantle of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. I have reported extensively on NAFTA and PNTR and am unaware of any public statement Hillary Clinton ever made against her husband’s trade and labor policies.

The Clintons’ retreat from the principles epitomized by the Roosevelts continued with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a regulatory hallmark of the New Deal aimed at discouraging the kind of bank speculation that brought on the crash of 2008. The administration’s 1996 “welfare reform” bill deprived millions of poor people, most of them minority women, of much-needed government subsidies and was praised by the unprogressive Newt Gingrich as “a major, major achievement.” I don’t find Hillary protesting those “achievements.”

And then there’s universal health care, abandoned as a goal during the Clinton Administration, and which Hillary now says is unrealistic. It might very well be if you’ve taken $495,807 in campaign donations from the insurance business and $1,135,218 from pharmaceutical interests.

But you say that Hillary, as a feminist, has a right to be judged on her own record, not her husband’s. What Sanders can’t say, because he is a gentleman, is that Hillary Clinton’s career as a politician—unlike, say, Elizabeth Warren’s—does not exist without her husband, either as Senator, or as Secretary of State, or as a possible President. It’s not easy getting on the ballot, whether you grew up left-wing in Brooklyn, like Bernie Sanders, or Republican in Illinois, like Hillary Clinton.

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

Publisher's Note June 10, 2019, 12:05 pm

My French Side

Publisher's Note May 8, 2019, 5:36 pm

Suicidal Strategy

“The Times has used every opportunity to present Sanders as an obstacle to Trump’s eventual overthrow.”

Publisher's Note April 4, 2019, 1:38 pm

Another Way of Life

“It appeared that everyone wanted to talk to a journalist from the United States with no visible axe to grind.”

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

July 2019

Ramblin’ Man

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“Just Keep Going North”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

El Corralón

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Marmalade Sky

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

New Books

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Trials of Vasily Grossman

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
“Just Keep Going North”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On February 5, 2019, the president of the United States (a certain Donald Trump) in his State of the Union speech warned of “migrant caravans and accused Mexican cities of busing migrants to the border ‘to bring them up to our country in areas where there is little border protection.’ ”? Wishing to see the border for myself, I decided to visit Arizona, where my ignorance of local conditions might save me from prejudgment.

Article
Marmalade Sky·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a November Saturday in 1990, Pam went over to Joe’s place to listen to records. It was raining in sheets that whipped around the corners of buildings and blowing so hard that women in heels were taking men’s arms to cross the street. Cars were plowing bow waves through puddles of scum.

As Joe was letting Pam into the apartment, a man emerged from the bedroom with a square sheet of black plastic in his hand and said, “Hey, man, you have the Sassy Sonic Youth flexi!”

Article
The Trials of Vasily Grossman·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Discussed in this essay:

Stalingrad, by Vasily Grossman. Translated by Robert Chandler and Elizabeth Chandler. New York Review Books. 1,088 pages. $27.95.

Vasily Grossman and the Soviet Century, by Alexandra Popoff. Yale University Press. 424 pages. $32.50.

Life and Fate, by Vasily Grossman. Translated by Robert Chandler. New York Review Books. 904 pages. $24.95.

An Armenian Sketchbook, by Vasily Grossman. Translated by Robert Chandler and Elizabeth Chandler. New York Review Books. 160 pages. $14.95.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

A swarm of ladybugs in California was so large that it appeared on the National Weather Service’s radar.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today