Political Hopeless: Hillary Clinton

There is something profoundly sad about watching Hillary Clinton post-2016. It’s not that you could pick out a hint of sadness or a lack of purpose in her face, but there is something beyond comprehension. Her years of being in the spotlight have made her impenetrable, and facing some of the biggest humiliations of public life, standing by her husband while lurid accusation after lurid accusation arose, and losing in 2016 to a brash, vulgar, and inexperienced candidate have seemingly not damaged that public mask. For Hillary, who ticked every box on the way to the ballot, stood by an unfaithful husband to save both their political careers, and generally moved heaven and earth to ensure her nomination, the University speaking circuit, no matter how rewarding, must feel like a sorry consolation prize. Watching Hillary speak on May 8^th at the Hopkins Center felt like watching a grown-up child prodigy play a Brahms sonata. This is someone who has devoted so many of their years to something, and suddenly, they’re simply not as good as they thought they were. The things they showed off to friends and family no longer impress the way they used to. You might applaud, but you’d never gush like you did when their promise was seemingly limitless. Even in an exceedingly friendly venue, flanked by former aides, and greeted by thunderous applause that heralded her entrance, exit, and punctuated her most “red-meat” statements, she sat humbly, hands clasped, and head ever-so-slightly bowed.  

Clinton was interviewed by Jake Sullivan, current Montgomery Fellow at the College and former chief policy aide for her 2016 campaign, as well as Dan Benjamin, the director of the Dickey Center and former Obama counterterrorism advisor. She looked more comfortable sitting among the wonks and talking of the old days than she ever did in a New Hampshire diner. As Sullivan and Benjamin began asking questions, it became clear that instead of exploring the identity and search for the meaning of a losing candidate, it was a talk that was to be centered on Donald Trump and his new world order. Perhaps it was fitting, as Hillary has found herself in a situation where everything she stood for, even with her judiciousness and her refusal to be as radical as the liberal activists wanted, has been overturned or destroyed. She discussed at length the fate of the Iran Nuclear Deal, which was perhaps the best encapsulation of the Trump-Clinton difference. Hillary prefers the role of global coalitions and trust-building, placing a fundamental amount of faith in the international order to pursue what is right in the world. President Trump is more likely to go it alone, to singlehandedly rip apart the Iran deal while sneering at the “globalists” who dare to defend it. It seemed that she thought of herself as The West Wing, and Donald Trump as House of Cards. Clinton herself chalked much of the President’s actions up to a fundamental desire to provoke, and I couldn’t find myself disagreeing with that. It made me question whether it is even possible for another Hillary to succeed on the national stage. The taboos, safeguards, and decorum of the office has been largely stripped to its core, and while you can debate the merits or importance of that shift, there is no denying that it has taken place. Is it even possible to imagine a presidency without Twitter anymore? 

It just so happens that the day she came to town, President Trump exerted executive privilege over the redacted sections of the Mueller report. Clinton was asked to comment, and in a move that likely disappointed the more hardcore partisans in the room, she drew on her experience as a young lawyer on the House Judiciary Committee team that investigated Watergate and urged caution, a refrain familiar to observers of her as a presidential candidate. But she also explained that there were two necessary conclusions: that the Russians had interfered with the election, and that Donald Trump had obstructed justice. From that she made sure that to mention Russian interference in 2016, sounding the alarm about their interference on social media, in our power grids, and even in our physical voting structure. Although it seemed she was using that as an excuse, a point of consolation for her loss, her statements were true. According to a report produced by 8 intelligence agencies in January of 2017, Russia did comprehensively interfere. Apparently, this is such a sore subject for the President that cabinet secretaries and aides have been warned not to bring it up with him for fear of reprisal. 

But despite looking like the elder stateswoman that she is, something about Hillary smacked of evasiveness. One of the selling points of Jake Sullivan as a Montgomery fellow was that beyond his expertise as a top policy man, he was reportedly the only prominent campaign staffer to question Clinton’s decision to ignore the Midwestern states that delivered the Presidency to Trump, dismantling Hillary’s coronation. With someone so prescient and willing to go against the hivemind, I was shocked that there was no dialogue about how Hillary had erred. One of the biggest rounds of applauses was when Hillary reminded the crowd that she had won the Popular Vote. I found myself saying, “Yes, you did Hillary, but what happened in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania?” I believe in accountability, but I also believe in dignity. I don’t suggest that she has some mandate to flagellate herself on-stage to rectify the disappointment of everyone who supported her, but you would expect more self-analysis from someone who must have done quite a bit of soul searching after her defeat.  

That Midwestern question was on my lips the entire time, and I was disappointed to see it go unanswered. But Secretary Clinton also left perhaps the question unanswered: what is the direction of the Democratic party?  

President Obama, who endured humiliating, racially-motivated attacks from Donald Trump, has not spent his time complaining about who is in the White House. In fact, he never mentions him by name. He has not let the man define him in his quest to bolster and freshen the Democratic party, but Clinton has. Hillary will likely continue on this long trek, speaking to colleges, think tanks, and investment banks, where she can pull in hundreds of thousands per speech. That’s uninspiring for a woman who was a trailblazer, a sure thing, a breaker of glass ceilings. When I sat down in my seat, I whispered to a friend that it was so strange seeing her in person, as she has lived her whole public life on the TV screen. I said that something about it didn’t feel real. Perhaps I was right in more ways than I thought.