Way back at the beginning of this endless campaign, in April 2015, I had a post titled "What Does Hillary Stand For?" My inspiration for the post began when I went to Hillary Clinton's then-new campaign website, looking for specific policy proposals, and found next to nothing -- other than the vaguest of platitudes, like "I want to be your champion." (Egads! How can I avoid having this numbskull as my "champion"?) A further inspiration for the post was that both the Wall Street Journal and the Economist had just run editorials asking the exact same question, with both coming up equally empty handed.
Anyway, my conclusion was, at least on the domestic front, you don't really need specific proposals from Hillary to know what she stands for. Don't expect any actual vision from her. She just stands for the absolutely conventional thinking of the unthinking left -- more money out of the infinite taxpayer fountain to fund my friends and cronies to create every new program they can think of and to fix every known human problem. Of course it will work this time! Here's how I put it in that post:
We know that she is the very most conventional of left-wing thinkers. We know that she has no interest whatsoever in rocking the government gravy boat. We know that she deeply believes in the main project of the Left, which is to bring social justice and equality to the world through government action and crony capitalism.
Fast forward a year and a half, and Hillary's website has at least a few specifics, very much along the lines that I foresaw. But she mostly avoids talking about policy specifics, let alone any concept of vision for the country. When I see parts of her campaign events on the news, in every case she is not engaged in promoting her own policy proposals, but rather is trying to scare her potential supporters about Donald Trump, while avoiding discussion of any actual issues in the election.
Which brings me to the quote of the day. Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal has a column today, headline "Hillary Becomes the Unsafe Hand," with the theme that various aspects of the email/national security controversy make Hillary far the more risky choice in this election. And then we come our quote of the day, on Hillary's "vision" for the country:
With Mrs. Clinton, as with Mr. Obama, a voter naturally struggles to understand what the overarching vision is. There isn’t one. They exist to deliver the wish-list of Democratic lobby groups for more power over the people of the United States. Period.
Too bad I wasn't the first to come up with that pithy turn of phrase. Anyway, if you're wondering why there is near total unanimity among the government-funded and government-cradled sectors of the economy (federal and state government workers, teachers, academia, crony capitalists, unions) in favor of Hillary, that's all you need to know.