As I type this title, I laugh. I snicker, and I think what was possibly going through the head of The Atlantic’s Senior Editor David Frum on Twitter a few weeks ago when he said, “If Hillary Clinton was President now, Putin would be paying a price for his attack on our democracy.”
I could write an entire piece on how we aren’t a democracy, but what’s the point? He doesn’t care. Instead, I will address the first part of that ludicrous tweet; the thought that Hillary Clinton would have checked an aggressive Kremlin regime.
Now you might say, “Well William, that’s not what Mr. Frum said.” Well I’d retort, “It’s clearly what he implied.”
Recently, I have seen a lot of my more liberal leaning friends imply and out right say things like this. I’ve seen the never ending “but her emails” hot takes in reply to mistakes the Trump Administration has made, implying that if Hillary had been President these kinds of mistakes wouldn’t happen. I’ve seen the “Trump was under investigation too” posts to try and minimize how Hillary Clinton broke the law, totally disregarding the fact that there is no evidence that Donald Trump actually broke the law. They’re all ridiculous.
See, the common liberal response to the election of Donald Trump is to chastise fly-over America and lecture them about the “bad decision” they made. That is why all those “Donald Trump is a Russian spy” threads on Twitter end with Hillary Clinton magically becoming President. It is why the RESIST movement has become the de facto “Not My President” movement. They believe in their heart that Hillary would have been a better President and vehemently search for any shred of evidence to validate that. The thought that Hillary’s response to Russia’s meddling in our election would have been tougher than President Trump’s is asinine.
To begin, how could Hillary Clinton run a successful presidency if she couldn’t even run a successful campaign? If she didn’t even have enough smarts to go to Wisconsin during the general election, how could she negotiate a deal over the debt ceiling?
What is truly staggering about that tweet is the historical context behind it. If you remember, Hillary Clinton helped launch one the worst foreign policy agendas of an administration since Jimmy Carter. From her and President Obama’s failed Libyan intervention, to the disastrous Iran Deal, which, according to Politico, she helped lay the ground work for. How would that woman stand up to Putin?
How could one trust that Hillary Clinton would make Putin pay a price for his meddling in our election if she laid the ground work for Barack Obama’s disastrous foreign policy? In a clear pay for play deal, she helped sell Uranium to the Russians, negotiated a failed Russian reset all helping lead to the current Ukrainian situation, and so much more.
The thing is, I didn’t vote for Trump, or Hillary. I didn’t think either of them deserved to hold the highest office in the land. So, this is not a pro-Trump post, but merely a reality check. Hillary Clinton would have been just as ineffective, bad, and corrupt as she was as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.
Make no mistake, this is not an endorsement of President Trump’s detente when it comes to Russian aggression, but it’s simply a realization that neither major party candidate could handle Putin the way he needs to be handled, with strength and clear parameters.
The fact of the matter is that a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been 4-8 more years of the failed foreign policy of President Obama. A foreign policy that seemingly prides itself on being “late to the party” and allowing conflict to boil over until it’s past the point of no return. So, I disagree, Mr. Frum, Hillary Clinton would not have put Putin in his place any more than Barack Obama did.