Op-Ed by Jake Anderson
October 14, 2015
(ANTIMEDIA) The first Democratic Party debate concluded last night and the consensus among many pundits and political talking heads was that Hillary Clinton made a strong showing as the front-runner. Whether her performance was strong enough to ward off a Joe Biden candidacy remains to be seen.
What we do know is that Clinton made it very clear she would be a very strong candidate for one political party: the GOP. That’s right. While Clinton is a stalwart Democrat and liberal on some issues, on a wide range of other issues she lands squarely as a moderate conservative — sometimes even an outright neocon. Consider the following points:
She continues to shield and supports the Big Banks
While Bernie Sanders railed against the Big Banks and financial institutions that eviscerated our economy and called for a complete overhaul of Wall Street, Hillary offered a meek, almost shockingly ridiculous summary of her approach. To paraphrase, the former Secretary of State said she used to work on Wall Street, and what did she do? Well, she went right up to them and said, “Cut it out.” Literally. That was Hillary Clinton’s approach to the Big Banks. She told them to “cut it out.”
On a more substantive note, she has consistently resisted any concrete language with regard to reigning in the corruption on Wall Street. This may have something to do with her campaign ties to major financial institutions, or it may simply be her allegiance to corporatocracy.
More importantly, unlike Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton is steadfastly against reinstating the Glass-Steagall legislation that could actually bare teeth against Wall Street and initiate some meaningful reform. This is precisely why Guggenheim Partner Jaret Seiberg wrote, “We continue to believe Clinton would be one of the better candidates for financial firms.”
So, just like the GOP candidates she is so fond of deriding, Hillary Clinton is pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Banks, pro-keeping the fat cats that destroyed the economy rolling in the derivative profits.
Clinton still thinks the Patriot Act is a good idea
Despite all the knowledge we now have about how the Patriot Act has stripped away our civil liberties and granted unconstitutional surveillance capabilities to the NSA, Clinton does not apologize for her vote, nor for her 2006 reauthorization vote. This unconstitutional bill granted the government unprecedented powers of civilian detainment, as well as access to private data. When the FISA laws were updated by the Patriot Act, programs like PRISM enabled the NSA to collect millions of phone records from Americans with no suspected ties to terrorism.
Clinton evidently has no problem with these civil liberties violations as she thinks they are necessary to protecting the homeland. Does this sound familiar? It should, because it’s the exact same fraudulent ideological platitude the GOP pushes — a tyrannical, patently false viewpoint that has been thoroughly debunked and yet is continually peddled to justify the systematic deep state war crimes we conveniently call the War on Terror.
When it comes to the surveillance state and its full frontal attack on our civil liberties, Hillary Clinton is an unapologetic conservative and regularly uses GOP talking points on the issue.
Clinton is a war hawk and will keep the War on Terror going
The War on Terror is the bloody connective tissue that keeps Democrats and Republicans part of the same insidious state apparatus. Thanks to Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama, our nation’s never-ending military campaign against the Middle East now includes Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, and of course, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The recent bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan underscores how the War on Terror didn’t end when Bush left office. Rather, it morphed and accelerated under Obama’s watch and would continue under Hillary Clinton. She has supported every single one of his drone strikes and supports arming Syrian rebels in order to destabilize the Assad regime.
Would Clinton go to war with Syria? Probably not as an outright Shock and Awe invasion. She would do exactly what Obama is doing: preside over a more manageable War on Terror that lines the pockets of defense contractors and feeds the military-industrial complex while hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians die.
Guess what? That’s a neoconservative worldview that places her squarely in the camp of the GOP.
Just to drive this point home, let’s once again revisit the debate. When moderator Anderson Cooper asked the candidates what constitutes the greatest threat facing our country, Bernie Sanders responded, unequivocally, “climate change.”
What was Hillary’s response? Terrorists.
GOP to the core.
Clinton considers Edward Snowden a criminal and would prosecute him
Despite the fact that Edward Snowden risked his life and freedom to expose the crimes of the United States government and inform the nation’s citizens that their rights were being violated, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders maintain he should stand trial. Sanders at least capitulated that Snowden “played a very important role in educating the American public.”
Clinton, on the other hand, refused to even consider him a whistleblower and dished out reactionary statist GOP rhetoric concerning the national security sensitivity of the information he leaked. This, of course, isn’t surprising given that Clinton enthusiastically supports all of the unconstitutional programs that Snowden revealed. Clinton made it clear that she thinks Snowden is a coward for taking refuge in Russia, however she was head of the State Department when it revoked Snowden’s passport, leaving him stranded in Russia against his will.
Clinton does not support the legalization of marijuana
Despite the now irrefutable evidence that marijuana is not a dangerous drug and is, in fact, beneficial as a medicinal treatment, Clinton stated during the debate that she does not believe it should be legal. In a desperate bid to appear more liberal next to Sanders, who supports legalization, Clinton said that she did want to reform the prison system that allows for non-violent offenders to receive long prison sentences. Ironic considering she was a major driving factor behind her husband’s successful push for mass incarceration spending in the 90s.
Well, guess what? It’s impossible to reform the prison-industrial complex without legalizing marijuana, so her rhetoric there is completely empty. More importantly, two of Clinton’s top campaign financiers are private prison lobbyists. Conflict of interest? Most certainly. And, of course, the corrupt Drug War has been and continues to be a major legacy of the Republican Party, which Hillary Clinton once again pays allegiance to with her regressive policies.
This article (Why Hillary Clinton Should Run as a Republican) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email email@example.com.