It has been evident for weeks now that Hillary Clinton is a responsible centrist in the tradition of bipartisan internationalism. Donald Trump is not responsible, not centrist, not within any bipartisan tradition of internationalism. Today at the American Legion in Ohio, Clinton gave a speech most Republicans could deliver.
Follow Jennifer Rubin's opinionsFollow
She then continued, in terms Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or former secretary of state George Shultz could have used: “If there’s one core belief that has guided and inspired me every step of the way, it’s this: The United States is an exceptional nation. I believe we’re still Lincoln’s last, best hope on earth. We’re still Reagan’s shining city on a hill. We’re still Robert Kennedy’s great, unselfish, compassionate country.” In case you missed it, she added that “part of what makes America an exceptional nation is that we’re also an indispensable nation. The indispensable nation. People all over the world look to us and follow our lead.”
She added a tidbit as Trump makes his way to Mexico, his first foreign trip since his golf course opening in Scotland. “But my opponent in this race has said very clearly that he thinks American exceptionalism is insulting to the rest of the world. In fact, when Vladimir Putin of all people criticized American exceptionalism, my opponent agreed with him. He said, quote, ‘If you’re in Russia, you don’t want to hear that America is exceptional.”’ Well, maybe you don’t want to hear it – but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.” Trump sounds sniveling and within the spell of Putin saying things like that; he sounds like the caricature of a liberal Democrat.
In the clearest terms possible, Clinton rebuked any idea of “leading from behind.” She told the crowd, “Our power comes with a responsibility to lead – humbly, thoughtfully and with a fierce commitment to our values. Because when America fails to lead, we leave a vacuum – and that either causes chaos, or other countries and networks rush in to fill the void.” If only President Obama had understood that about Iraq and Syria. She went on: “So, no matter how hard it gets, no matter how great the challenge, America must lead. And if I am president, we will.”
She stressed the importance of allies, whom Trump likes to kick to the curb, and of steadiness: “You don’t build a coalition by insulting our friends or acting like a loose cannon.” In that vein she continued, “We can’t cozy up to dictators; we have to stand up to them. We can’t contain ISIS, we must defeat it – and we will. We’ll do whatever is necessary, for as long as it takes, to bring them to justice and end their reign of terror once and for all.” And she wrapped up with a foreign policy version of “What do you have to lose?” She argued, ” [Things] also can get worse. Much worse. Things will be worse if more countries get nuclear weapons. Things will be worse if we abandon our allies. Things will be worse if our commander in chief orders our military to break the law and commit torture.”
And finally she wrapped up with a policy statement Republicans should have made a long time ago: Repudiation of the sequester on national security grounds. “Arbitrary limits on something as important as our military makes no sense at all. The sequester is making our country less secure. We will end it, and get a budget deal that supports America’s families and our military. And we’ll make reform a priority, to make sure our Defense Department is spending its budget on the right things.”
She not only stole the GOP playbook, she ingested it. It was in short the sort of robust speech the pro-national security Republican in a presidential race usually gives. With the exception of independent conservative Evan McMullin, we don’t have one of those. Clinton suggests in a pinch she will do. In this race, many concerned about national security will agree.