Hillary As An Agent of Change

Is Senator Hillary Clinton ready to serve as president? And, if elected would she be an agent of change or a protector of the status quo?

I have known Hillary Clinton since she first met my friend Bill Clinton at Yale Law School and he fell head over heels in love with her. I had met Bill at Oxford when he was rooming as a Rhodes Scholar with my brother-in-law. Bill brought Hillary to my family home in Los Angeles, where we spent many hours talking about the changes taking place in the US in the 1960s and prospects for progressive reform. Polls show that by virtue of her political experience and her recognized talents, people recognize that Hillary is almost uniquely ready to serve as president and as commander-in-chief, even among those who politically oppose her. But I also have good reasons for believing that were she to be elected, she would be an even more effective and accomplished president than her husband. Because of her abilities and sensibilities, and the likely circumstances of her winning, Hillary would be a strong leader who manages change in the public interest-at home and abroad--in the manner of FDR or Harry Truman. She is, in fact, the true heir to the New Deal tradition of the Democratic Party, but for a new era.

This opinion, I believe, is reality-based, not simply the wishful thinking of an old friend. I have had the opportunity to see her up close as a political actor on the world and national stage and to observe her evolution over decades.

While serving as US Ambassador to Finland in the 1990s, I hosted Hillary for a two-day visit to Helsinki. I organized a meeting of what the Finnish press called "the most powerful women in the country" to talk with her at my official residence. In Finland at the time, the Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, Speaker of the Parliament and head of the National Bank were all women. They came to meet the First Lady along with a few leading women entrepreneurs and business executives, and top editors and authors. For more than two hours, they discussed public policy and politics. The lively discussion ranged from the details of Finnish health policy to the difficulties that women face in the political arena. These women viewed Hillary as an important political figure in her own right. She had no aides to prompt her or hand her cue cards. Afterwards, many of the women told me how impressed they were with her, and that they hoped that one day she would run for president.

On that visit, I also accompanied Hillary to a one-on-one meeting with Martti Ahtisaari, the President of Finland, and an accomplished UN diplomat. The conversation with the president went on for two hours and ranged over complex issues of European security and US foreign policy. It was very much a discussion of equals in intelligence.

Hillary also won over my skeptical staff at the US embassy, many of whom had read the negative US press about her and expected that she would be a kind of shrewish Dragon Lady. In fact, she charmed everyone at the embassy with her openness, her sense of humor, and her natural kindness. She took the time to ask personal questions of my staff, and to thank them for their service -- from the political officers and military attaches to my cook and driver.

"She was not what I had expected," one of my intelligence officers remarked. "She is terrific and incredibly smart." That speaker was a lifelong Republican.

As First Lady, Hillary made visits to other embassies across the globe, and I heard reports from colleagues at posts in Asia and Africa and Europe that mirrored my own observations of her in Finland. She impressed international leaders with her knowledge, ability, and charm, and she learned from these experiences. On her final night in Finland, we took a walk without security along the rocky coast to a café overlooking the harbor. My cell phone rang, and it was President Clinton, checking in with his wife, asking her for advice on a political matter in Washington. I heard her recount to him how much she enjoyed visiting Finland -- a country that combines a dynamic market economy with a societal commitment to equality and community -- and how it seemed to be the kind of decent society that we should strive for back home.

During the 1992 campaign, I had observed first-hand Hillary respond calmly and coolly to challenging and embarrassing political crises, and even to her own political gaffes. After her unfortunate comment about not wanting to be the little woman who stayed at home and baked, my sister who traveled with her at the time gave her our family chocolate chip recipe. She got the message, and had cookies baked and served them to the press corps. Not only does Hillary have an ability to laugh at herself, but she quickly learns from her mistakes. She has a first class temperament -- a hallmark of many great political leaders.

Many political pundits said that she would fall on her face when she ran for the Senate in New York, but she proved them wrong. As a senator, she assembled one of the most talented, effective staffs in the Congress, and she displayed tact and deftness in working with other senators, even across the aisle with Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham. As president, she will be ready on day one to work closely with Congressional leaders to move a progressive agenda forward. Her colleagues know her and respect her -- and if she had not chosen to run for President, I am certain that she would have been the next Majority Leader.

She chose to serve on the Senate military committee. One four star officer with whom I worked on NATO peacekeeping had to testify before the committee and also meet privately with her. He told me afterwards that she was direct, had a mastery of complex issues, and was the opposite of patronizing or defensive about military issues. Her views on defense and foreign policy are progressive as well as nuanced and thoughtful. She does not play to the crowd with cheap rhetoric. She has promised to bring US troops out of Iraq, but having a grasp of the challenges involved she will do it in a way that does not make a bad situation worse. And she will do it with the close consultation and cooperation of the military. She understands the importance of American moral leadership, and how much "Brand America" has been tarnished by the rash and radical policies of the Bush administration. She knows first hand how the administration has ignored the counsel of professionals in the Pentagon, State Department and CIA. She would restore competence to the US government, and begin to repair our damaged standing in the world. She understands, as President Bush does not, that the leader of the US is also a kind of president of the world, and has responsibility to lead but not to try to dominate. She does not need a Henry Kissinger or other eminence grises to tell her what to think about the world. She has a depth of experience and a detailed understanding of international affairs. She will assemble a talented and progressive team to manage US national security and work with other nations to construct a new New Deal for the age of globalization. That is her vision.

As for change at home, her commitment to progressive values should never be held in doubt. Since she was a student at Wellesley protesting the Vietnam War and then as an activist law student at Yale when I first met her, she has been a progressive. In New Haven, she worked at Yale medical school on issues of early childhood education and health care, and she is committed to bringing universal health care to the US. She is not an ideologue about the means, but she is unswerving about the goal, and she knows that other countries have found various ways to achieve this end and that we can too. Her interest and commitment to children and their welfare is signified by her lifelong support for her friend Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund, and for the issues that Edelman has championed.

All of her adult life she has displayed a passionate regard for how government can expand opportunity for all of our citizens by leveling the playing field for those not blessed with wealthy parents. As First Lady in Arkansas, she made educational reform her priority. President Carter appointed her to the board of the Legal Services Corporation, and she fought to expand its provision of legal services for poor Americans. She has fought for her beliefs, and when she has lost she has gotten back up and continued the struggle, altering tactics if necessary to achieve practical results. Hillary is a hard-headed, reality-based, practical progressive -- and it is no accident that the Radical Right opposes her and has tried to bring her down. They know that she will not fold under pressure of attack, and that she cannot be bought off by special interests.

Unlike her husband -- the most gifted natural politician of my generation -- Hillary has not always wanted to be President or even Senator. In fact, it was Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York who suggested that she run for the Senate, not her husband or some political advisor. She has grown in to her political persona. Hillary wants to be President for the change that she can bring in the lives of our citizens and in the actions of our country -- for the opportunity to make a better, fairer and more decent American society and global community -- not just for the position and power that the job brings. Of this, I am dead certain.

And she knows from her years alongside her husband that as President she cannot be a leader of change by herself. It is myth and misunderstanding that a president alone can change a nation for the better (although, as we have learned, a bad president can do great damage). Hillary understands that only with allies in Congress and in statehouses and city halls across the nation can she drive forward a progressive agenda. And she understands that she will need to inspire and empower citizen groups to push for reform. FDR did not make the New Deal by himself. He led a national government that responded with passion and strength to workers and citizens who raised their voices for progressive change. If Hillary is elected President, and if as is likely a solidly Democratic Congress is elected, she will have helped to change the political atmosphere of the country, to create hope for the possibility of progressive change -- and she will be in a position to lead that change. It will be an historic moment of great consequence to the nation, and I have no doubt that she will be equal to the task. I cannot think of another American politician who would be better prepared. Strengthened by her bond with the Americans who elect her, Hillary would also reach out to the reasonable Republicans within the Congress who can be partners -- precisely in order to enact a reform agenda.

History sometimes provides opportunities for nations and for leaders -- but the outcome is not predetermined. I have spent forty years in progressive movements and democratic governments, first as a student activist then as an official in state and local government, and later as a federal official and US diplomat. I would not stake my reputation on supporting just another politician. I know Hillary, I trust her and I am certain that she is one person who will be the leader that our time demands.

Derek Shearer served as US Ambassador to Finland in the Clinton administration. He has worked in state and local government in California, and been active in progressive politics for four decades. He is currently Chevalier Professor of Diplomacy at Occidental College in Los Angeles.

Comments

[DonaldD]

Interesting timing of this blog submission. It reads like a cheerleader coming out to bat for Hilary when the going gets touch (Read: her numbers are sliding). Thou does protest too much in her favor. I do believe she is better the her husband in many ways; too bad she didn't leave him when he proved to be the anti-feminist he really is.

[dsigeorge]

This piece should be saved as classic primer in ass kissing. A spew of platitudes laying there for us to move quickly away from. Her record speaks for itself and it disqualifies her. All those wishing appointments in the next administration should look elsewhere for ass to kiss.

[old new englander]

Would Hillary be an agent of change? Probably. But it would be incremental change. Barack Obama is the only candidate who can bring the kind of change in spirit and approach that JFK brought in 1961.

[RogerBybee225]

Mr. Shearer asks if, as president, Hillary Clinton would be an agent of change or a protector of the status quo?"

The correct answer is neither: how about "an active agent of the status quo"? Hillary is certainly no FDR for this era or any other; when the chips are down, she stands firmly with what FDR called "the economic royalists" (eg., a health plan centered on retaining health insurers in command of the health system; support for the NAFTA-style Free Trade Agreement with Peru; support for welfare "reform" in 1996 that repealed part of FDR's Social Security Act.)

Nor will Clinton observe what FDR called his "good Neighbor policy" with other nations. Clinton is far too wedded to the corporations and military leaders who maintain the US empire. She not only voted for the Iraq war, but also voted against Sen. Levin's amendment requiring that all piplomatic means be exhausted before launchng war against Iraq. Her recent bellicose statements on Iran blew up in her face when the National Intelligence Estimate found that Iran had stopped its atomic-weapons program four years ago.

I can appreciate Mr. Shearer's longstanding connection to the Clintons, but he doesn't offer a shred of hope that she is prepared to address the appalling economic polarization in the US or put an end to aggressive preventive wars in consolidating the US empire abroad.

In 1980, Mr. Shearer wrote a book advocating "economic democracy" and a humane foreign policy. Hillary Clinton stands for neither.

Roger Bybee, Milwaukee

[Canukistani]

Come now. Hillary might very well be the best politician in the race, but that doesn't make her the best leader. It seems to me that she's too busy being careful not to take a firm position on most issues to be considered any kind of leader at all. How can she be an agent for change when she's so careful to be conventional?

SHe and her followers would also do well to stop trying to portray anyone who prefers another candidate as a Hillary hater/basher. This idea that Hillary is the only choice a reasonable person could make sounds too much like Bush's saying that if you disagree with him you must hate America.

[nancyk]

I'm not buying this guy's line.

Hillary Clinton has received more money from employees of the top five U.S. arms manufacturers—Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, General Dyanmics and Raytheon—than any other Presidential candidate, including the leading Republicans.

“An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defense industry employees are pouring money into [Hillary’s] war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defense contracts.”
The Independent, 10/19/07

•Hillary voted to authorize Bush’s war on Iraq
•Hillary voted against legislation banning the sale of cluster bombs for use in heavily populated civilian areas
•Hillary voted to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (a branch of the Iranian armed forces, akin to our Marines) a terrorist organization; many interpreted this as a vote to empower Bush to bomb Iran
•Hillary said that if elected president, she would not rule out military strikes to destroy Teheran’s nuclear facilities
•Hillary has been reported as having said that she foresees an “American presence” in Iraq through the end of her second term as President, i.e. American boots on the ground through 2013.

HILLARY IS A MILITARY HAWK. WE NEED PEACE, NOT BUSH-CHENEY LITE.

[waiguoren]

In a word:

JIVE!

[TheKiddy]

Two thoughts:

1. Didn't Hillary support legislation to ban burning the flag?

2. Is it really wise to elect a Clinton, regardless of pros and cons, creating another dynastic White House?

I genuinely think it better for our democracy to go with a non-Bush and non-Clinton for a long, long time.

[Paisano]

We do not need republican lite!

[Prankster]

OH PLEASE!!!! Hillary is the biggest phony walking! I've been a Dem my whole life, and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against George!!!!

[PerryLogan]

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

[JohnCP]

A poitive view of Hillary Clinton. What will all the hate mongers, all the deluded half wits, all the cynical mis- and mal-informed belly achers, all the snobs full of forebodings of doom about this amazing, unique first lady, have to say? This fellow has been involved in progressive politics for forty years, and has known the Clintons for as long a time. If he's known them, and, been involved in progressive politics for forty years, could it be, that all you bitter nay-sayers have been wrong about Hillary? No, that can't be. What is his forty years of knowning tham, against your hear-say and gossip. You aren't the ones that have been misled ... he must be; knowing them for forty years must have biased him, so that he can't think clearly. He's lying.

[Pat]

Wow, Derek, take off your rose colored glasses! What would your toughest Progressive professor back in the day say about this "skim the surface" article?

You brought up educational reform by Hillary back in Arkansas as a strength. I remember in '93 I was a big Hillary fan and very excited about her taking on health care reform. I was an undergrad sitting in a government class when I learned that Arkansas went from 48th to 49th in education under Hillary's watch. "Uh oh", I thought, "I hope she does better with health care." We all know that was a flop.

You didn't mention NAFTA, the Iraq War, Kyl-Lieberman, or her huge amount of corporate support. Why not? I think your article was lacking in insight and credibility because it was clouded by your friendship.

[cadawa]

You have extremely low standards. I couldn't possibly take any recommendation you make seriously.
If you think bought off party hack will make a marvelous president, I'm not sure you should even vote.

[Thad]

Hi Derek,

You might want to consider reading Jane Hamsher's excellent post, Hillary Clinton Joins Joe Lieberman To Resurrect the Culture Wars, and tell me how much her scapegoating of pop culture sounds like "change" to you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I would trust Hillary Clinton a lot more if she had spent as much of 2003 criticizing the war in Iraq as she did criticizing Grand Theft Auto.