Editor’s Note: This article does not representthe views of the ‘Prince’.
There is no denying it – Hillary Clinton is not the candidate of the liberal youth of America.
Her monochromatic pantsuits, past affair with the White House and establishment credentials just don’t agree with the exhausted liberal idealists who wait for change. These weary idealists no longer believe that the entrenched liberal elite with their big pocket books and years of political backrooms deserve the job of governing. Instead of the typical bearer of the Democratic Party line who has patiently waited her turn, voters are turning to a rogue Vermont senator with a sweeping plan for economic reform and a penchant for talking with his hands. Oddly enough, the characteristics that make Hillary the stronger candidate are the same characteristics that make some voters turn away. Why are a large percentage of liberals so adamant that Bernie has a better plan?
For those voters, candidate preference is less about experience and more about ideals. Bernie is the candidate of lofty progressive dreams. He's inherently attractive to Democrats for the precise reason he can't be President: he is a liberal fantasy.Jim Webb picked upon this in one of the early Democratic primary debates when he frankly told Bernie that he didn’t think “the revolution” was coming. Bernie’s lofty dreams of an inwardly focused, economically equal country where everyone goes to college for free are beautiful to an extent, but then we have to wake up. When Bernie hits a predominantly Republican Congress, an interconnected global economy and moderate Democrats like a brick wall, it's going to be hard to stay asleep.
It comes as no surprise, then, that support of the Democratic establishment, who has dealt and continues to deal with political reality, does not lend support to Hillary. In fact, in some caucuses, the establishment has hurt her. Still, she boasts endorsements fromSenate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Planned Parenthood and the National Education Association, along with support from liberals over the age of 45.
Hillary is the most experienced candidate for President that the Democratic Party has seen in quite a while. Her tenures as Secretary of State, U.S. Senator and an activist First Lady have given her an incredible breadth and depth of political knowledge. She is not a simple “interventionist” as some liberals would cast her, she has astrong, nuanced foreign policy vision, developed and refined over time and through circumstance. Her domestic policy credentials come from her time as Senator and First Lady. She has battled just like Sanders on the Senate floor, and she knows exactly what it's like to try for years to move a resistant Congress (let's not forget the healthcare battle of the 1990s). This experience uniquely equips Hillary to not just gain support amongst liberals, but to actually govern the country.
That being said, Bernie can campaign. He can tell liberals what they want to hear – free college for everyone, a totally new and improved healthcare system and a better distribution of wealth. But the odds of Bernie accomplishing any of his policies, given the current political makeup of Congress, are low. Achieving any of these goals takes finesse, experience and bipartisanship. Hillary is the only candidate who embodies all three of these qualities. Bernie may be able to campaign, but Hillary can govern.
Standing in front of a crowd to draw from experience and talk about political reality isn’t nearly as popular as declaring the world unfair. In an election in which voters are enamored with ideas and impossibilities, governing isn’t glamorous. Liberal governing is the quiet and thankless task of keeping our country together and headed in a liberal direction. For this task, Hillary is undoubtedly the best candidate. She may not sparkle and inspire the way Bernie and his revolution do, but reality doesn’t sparkle either. It’s time we remembered that the President isn’t just an ideologue, but the governor of our country. When weary idealists remember that experience and political reality matter, they may just change their vote.Kennedy O'Dell '18 can be reached at kodell@princeton.edu.
Read More
Progressives failed a lesson in free speech
Anais Mobarak“The recent controversy surrounding Charter Club has demonstrated that progressive voices on campus have failed to recognize the value of free speech beyond its usefulness as a political instrument. Thus, as a community, we must work to foster an ideologically-free understanding of free speech.”
“The recent controversy surrounding Charter Club has demonstrated that progressive voices on campus have failed to recognize the value of free speech beyond its usefulness as a political instrument. Thus, as a community, we must work to foster an ideologically-free understanding of free speech.”
Campus through a lens: Announcing the ‘Prince’s inaugural columnists
Eleanor Clemans-CopeReading a series of columns by the same author is seeing things through the writer’s lens — it’s looking at campus through the ‘Christofer glasses’ or the ‘Eleanor specs.’ This is the thinking behind having named columns.
Reading a series of columns by the same author is seeing things through the writer’s lens — it’s looking at campus through the ‘Christofer glasses’ or the ‘Eleanor specs.’ This is the thinking behind having named columns.
Bring back the course packet
Abigail Rabieh“With the recent news that Labyrinth Books will no longer supply the coursebooks for Princeton classes, we are facing a new era in which all readings will only be accessible by some digital medium, whether that be via Course Reserves or online ordering from faraway publishers. While some may see this as a step in the right direction of modernity, the increasing digitalization of our scholarship hurts our learning.”
“With the recent news that Labyrinth Books will no longer supply the coursebooks for Princeton classes, we are facing a new era in which all readings will only be accessible by some digital medium, whether that be via Course Reserves or online ordering from faraway publishers. While some may see this as a step in the right direction of modernity, the increasing digitalization of our scholarship hurts our learning.”
