The New “Nasty Woman”: We Will Miss the Old One


In the midst of what should have been (if not for the populist political revolts of 2016) the dawn of a Clinton presidency, I find it surreal I lament that the very woman I detest will not be leading the American nation for the next four to eight years.

There, I have said it. Mere months after her exit from the political arena, I most sincerely miss Hillary Clinton.

She was corrupt, uninspiring, and had been part of the political establishment for so long she became their most notorious poster child. Yet, for all her faults she successfully kept radical, “progressive,” democratic-socialism at bay in the 2016 elections.

She defeated Bernie Sanders, but another prodigy of the left is waiting in the wings. That looming figure, of course, is none other than Senator Elizabeth Warren. The very senator who recently found herself subject to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s blundered attempt to silence her during debate on Senator Jeff Sessions’ confirmation as Attorney General. This monumental mistake on part of the Republican leadership has now only thrown her further into the liberal progressive spotlight that was already warming towards her.

The Democrats, particularly the party’s most vocal and active “progressive” wing, are bitter and seething with contempt, and angered with their own party that took actions to suppress socialist Bernie Sanders during the primaries, and angered with the larger American electorate, who denied them the chance to coronate their queen… um, I mean, elect the first female President.

With Warren, they have the chance to right both of these perceived wrongs cast upon them; if they are successful, the policies sure to be enacted by a Warren presidency would turn any foe of Clinton from the chant of “Lock Her Up!” to “I’m With Her!”

Clinton supported increasing the federal minimum wage to $12, and luke-warmly supported local and state attempts to increase it to $15, while Senator Warren highlighted in 2013 that the minimum wage should be at $22+ if it were continually tied to the standard of living.

Clinton, a staunch supporter of entitlement spending, such as Social Security, was pragmatic enough to not completely rule out the possibilities of cuts or restructuring the system. By contrast, Warren is a hardliner who not only refuses to cut or restructure Social Security, but wishes to expand the program already operating under financial strain.

Clinton was reluctant to withdraw her support of trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and once in office would likely have waffled on doing anything about stopping them, while Warren was a fierce advocate against them. This comes at a time when the Republican Party has become skeptical of trade under the leadership of President Donald Trump. Losing even more ground for pro-trade ideals could threaten our national economy, which even I, who am critical of multi-lateral trade deals, admit could be a problem, because a counterbalancing view always helps moderate extremes, in this case extremes of economic protectionism.

So while we all loved to hate her, Hillary Clinton may soon become a name we fondly look back upon. What strange times in which we find ourselves.

The following two tabs change content below.
The main account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at [email protected]