Dear Mr. BruAl— I want to know about your view of Hillary Clinton and her relationships in the USA. Your blog rocks. So far. Bud by the Cornfield
This link will give you most of what little we know about Hillary at this point in her life. It’s maybe 20 or 30 pages. Please take an hour or two to read the link, then get back to me for a few giggles.
Hillary is an almost mutant example of what we refer to as The Alpha Female. Pound for pound, tougher than any Christian man on earth. Mentally tough, a career overachiever willing to “dig deep” in the pursuit of truth, justice and the American way. (Yes, that was Superman, but you get our point.) She realized early in her career that she would not do well as a Republican and switched in time for the ’72 election. Since then she has been a loud mainstream liberal. And it’s the “liberal” part that makes so many folks throughout the country uncomfortable about Hillary.
Someone named Willis Player said that a liberal “is a person whose interests aren’t at stake at the moment.” Back in the 40’s and 50’s and 60’s when the old Great Democratic coalition came together, being a liberal meant supporting income redistribution, from the wealthy to the poor. Almost straight from the Bible. It meant supporting integration and voting rights and better schools, with higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy paying for it. It meant deficit spending in years of recession and accumulating surpluses during years of economic expansion. Growing up in the DC area, most of our parents were liberal democrats. Whereas black urban democrats and dixiecrats were largely born to their politics, suburban liberals, with the zeal of the convert, chose them. Being a liberal suggested enlightened self interest, service to a higher purpose than one’s own wallet, marginal personal sacrifice for the benefit of the greater good.
In 2007 in central Indiana liberal is a dirty word. How did this happen?
We at Mr. BruAl like to believe that our boy Ron Reagan began the process of converting a term connoting self-sacrifice and belief in racial equality into one of derision. If you’re a liberal in Indiana in 2007 people think you’re soft in the head, probably a closet homosexual, hopelessly naive, or simply incapable of critical thinking. (BTW, back in the 1920’s, Ron Reagan thumped my father during a high school debate contest somewhere between Dixon and Mendota, Illinois.) During his 8 years he made fun of “tax and spend” liberals while spending the ol’ Soviet Union out of existence, bringing the US economy out of recession and financing it all, lower taxes included, on his giant MasterCard, the national debt. Republicans liked the results of credit card spending so much they bought into the ridicule of liberals that accompanied it. Puddingheaded liberals couldn’t possibly understand the Laffer curve, the secret allowing both guns and butter.
The above chart looks at national debt as a percentage of GNP. The first column of figures is the national debt percentage at the start of the term. The second column is the percentage at the end of the term(s). Let’s see how our boy Ron did compared to those around him, including the tax and spend liberals: Net
Eisenhower 1953-1960 71.3 55.1 -16.2% Outstanding
Kennedy/Johnson 1961-1968 55.1 38.6 -16.5% Outstanding
Nixon/Ford 1969-1976 38.6 35.8 -2.8% Acceptable
Jimmy Carter 1977-1980 35.8 32.6 -3.2% One term only
Ronald Reagan 1981-1988 32.6 53.1 +20.5% Impeachable
George Bush Sr. 1989-1992 53.1 66.2 +13.1% Unacceptable
Bill Clinton 1993-2000 66.2 57.4 -8.8% Very good
George Bush Jr. 2001-2008* 57.4 69.8* +12.4% Shameful
Let’s acknowledge the active participation of the largely Democratic congress during these periods of frightening federal largesse. Let’s also acknowledge the existence of lags in these figures, which undoubtedly distort the results. Let’s not pretend that the difference is solely due to putting the military “back where it belongs” after years of alleged Democratic neglect. Since the early 80’s, being a conservative equates to having overseen the effective doubling of the national debt, the not-surprising consequence of having supported both big government and the ruthless and simultaneous pursuit of tax cuts scaled to disproportionately benefit people in higher income brackets.
As the national debt increases, growing debt payments thereon reduce the government’s ability to fund itself, a situation in which the magic of compound interest is clearly working against us. With politicians clearly unable to keep themselves from spending tax dollars, there is no long term alternative, outside of ridiculously optimistic forecasts of economic productivity, to increasing tax revenues. This is one half of the vise slowing growth prospects for the U.S. economy in the foreseeable future, the other half being the inevitable increase in the price of oil and the shocks that those increases always produce in the real prices of other goods and services.
In closing, Bud, let us say that Hillary comes across as moody, vindictive, cynical, betrayed, brilliant, utterly determined, and amoral, a do good-er at heart, who made the decision, back when it was fashionable, to become a liberal politician. She has stuck to her guns pretty much since then. We would not want to cross her, and we believe that Emma Thompson probably did a superb rendition of her in the movie version of Primary Colors. She is who she is. As a “Yellow Dog Democrat” we would vote for her before we’d vote for any of the current Republicans, if only so we could tell our grandchildren that we voted for the first woman ever to run for president. The same way we tell our daughters we voted for George McGovern in our first presidential election, and convinced our parents not to vote Republican for the first time EVER that same year. (We liberals love the futile, symbolic, highly-principled gesture. Republicans, please see Goldwater in ’64.)
Is Mr. BruAl a bleeding heart? Probably. Does Mr. BruAl still support the concept of redistributing income to address poverty? Yes. Is the political system sufficiently corrupt to prevent higher funding from producing better results? Yes. Is the crisis in families in our underclass, the result of generations of crime, drugs, welfare, debt, illegitimacy, abortion, incarceration and bureaucratic indifference, making it seem impossible to educate children from those environments? How could it not?
Mr. BruAl understands how Hillary can cause the skin of true conservatives to crawl. We do not expect her to get elected, although she could be an effective vice presidential candidate to a John Edwards. We believe that long-time Democrats think of Hillary the way long-time Republicans think of Nixon–flawed and unlikeable, something of a conniver, but one whose sins are far outweighed by his or her achievements, intellect and leadership. Certainly worth voting for.
One last note. As to her relationships in the USA, the only ones of which we’re pretty certain are the thing during college with the Sigma Xi’s from Harvard, the state police lieutenant in Little Rock, the Secret Service guy at the White House and the National Security guy, and the one-nighter with the new Federal Reserve guy at the Drake in Chicago last year when Bill was doing some crazy stuff in Africa. Typical of you Republicans to only want the lurid details.
Thanks for writing.