As 2017 draws to a close, how different might the last year have been if Hillary Rodham Clinton had been elected 45th president of the United States?\u00a0 Clearly, where one stands on the political scale defines this hypothetical answer.\u00a0 Yet, the tragedy is that the highly polarized, divisive and pernicious condition of American politics today suggests that no matter how unpopular President Donald Trump is today, a President Clinton may not have been much better received.<\/p>\n
For Republicans, President Hillary would have been a catastrophe. In their view, America would have continued to proceed down the disastrous path of President Barack Obama.\u00a0 Obamacare would have survived.\u00a0 There would have been no tax bill.\u00a0 With a Republican Congress, the Supreme Court would remain deadlocked 4-4 as the Senate would not confirm her nominee.\u00a0 Pandering to minorities and special interest groups which is a Democratic priority would further divide the nation.<\/p>\n
As bad, foreign policy under Clinton would have refused to take tough stands against North Korea and Kim Jung Un preferring to follow the failed policy of \u201cstrategic patience.\u201d\u00a0 NATO would continue to remain \u201cfree riders\u201d with the United States\u00a0 still shouldering the lion\u2019s share of defense spending. Jerusalem would not have been recognized at Israel’s capital.\u00a0 The Islamic State would remain in control of large slices of its caliphate in Iraq and Syria.\u00a0 China would continue to manipulate trade and currency and expand its influence even more.<\/p>\n
In sum, President Clinton would have made both the \u201cswamp\u201d in Washington and the \u201cdeep state\u201d even deeper and more dangerous to the American public.\u00a0 Free enterprise would be less free.\u00a0 And he stock market and unemployment gains of the last year would never have been made.<\/p>\n
Democrats of course would have made the absolute opposite case.\u00a0 At home, regulation would have remained the only way to govern given a Congress dedicated to ensuring President Clinton was a one-term chief executive. The complete deadlock on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue would have given President Clinton the opportunity to use the Executive Branch as the only means of defending the middle and lower classes against the rich. Her appointees as federal judges would have reflected this focus.\u00a0 While the Senate refused to confirm the ninth Supreme Court Associate Justice, that denial gave the White House the \u201cbully pulpit\u201d to attack Republicans.<\/p>\n
In foreign policy, Clinton would have only threatened to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) instead negotiating changes that were acceptable thus diminishing China\u2019s influence in Asia.\u00a0 As her forceful stand that led to American intervention over Kosovo in 1999 when her husband was president and in 2011 in Libya demonstrated, President Clinton would have been far tougher on the Islamic State and Russia.\u00a0 She would have ended the caliphate much sooner and rallied the Arab and Muslim nations more effectively\u00a0 against radical Islamists.\u00a0 As a woman, she would have pushed Saudi Arabia and the young crown prince far harder in modernization. Nor would she have ignored Russian interference in American elections.\u00a0 President Vladimir Putin would have had far tougher going and would not have been able to charm Mrs. Clinton as he has Donald Trump. Still, Clinton was not very popular with favorable ratings in the low 40% range.<\/p>\n
Of course, no one knows what a Clinton presidency would have done to change the past year.\u00a0 A few observations are relevant.\u00a0 At home, the stock market would have risen and unemployment would have remained low irrespective of president.\u00a0 Both are more affected by longer-term forces than presidential elections which almost always have little short-term impact on the economy.\u00a0 No doubt, Clinton would have canceled TPP.<\/p>\n
But she would have remained in the Paris Climate Change Accord and the nuclear deal with Iran which may prove to be two of the most damaging errors made by President Trump in withdrawing and de-certifying.\u00a0 About the Islamic State, every indication suggests a very aggressive stance.\u00a0 About North Korea, diplomacy would have played a stronger role.\u00a0 And the best (and perhaps only) benefit of President Clinton would be no more policy by tweet.<\/p>\n
Given the explosion of cases of sexual misconduct, Bill Clinton would have been more than an embarrassment and a continuing source of controversy. The Russian investigation would have focused not on President Trump but on Russian interference.\u00a0 And it was possible that candidate Donald Trump might have filed suit challenging the legitimacy of the election.<\/p>\n
All of this is speculation. Clinton did not win.\u00a0 Trump did.\u00a0 The sad conclusion is that neither may have had the \u201cright stuff\u201d to become an effective and unifying president.<\/p>\n
______________________________ ______________________________ ________<\/p>\n
Dr. Harlan Ullman is chairman of two private companies; senior advisor at the Atlantic Council and Business Executives for National Security.\u00a0 His latest book is Anatomy of Failure\u2014Why America Loses Every War It Starts. He is @harlankullman.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As 2017 draws to a close, how different might the last year have been if Hillary Rodham Clinton had been elected 45th president of the United States?\u00a0 Clearly, where one stands on the political scale defines this hypothetical answer.\u00a0 Yet, the tragedy is that the highly polarized, divisive and pernicious condition of American politics today suggests that no matter how unpopular President Donald Trump is today, a President Clinton may not have been much better received. For Republicans, President Hillary would have been a catastrophe. In their view, America would have continued to proceed down the disastrous path of President Barack Obama.\u00a0 Obamacare would have survived.\u00a0 There would have been […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":4861,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[69,76],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-americas","category-harlan-ullman-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4864"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4864"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4864\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4865,"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4864\/revisions\/4865"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4861"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cass-ro.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}