James Traub has an excellent long-read in Foreign Policy about what Hillary Rodham Clinton’s foreign policy would look like if she were elected president. Traub’s essay is worth reading in full: He expertly navigates the challenges of parsing out Clinton’s record as secretary of state when so much foreign policy was run out of the Obama White House.
This part in particular stood out to me:
[I]t’s clear from conversations I had this summer with most of her senior staff members, as well as White House officials and outside advisors, that Clinton is a cautious figure who distrusts grandiose rhetorical formulations, is deeply grounded in the harsh realities of politics, and prefers small steps to large ones….The hope that Obama offered, above all in his first year in office, often seemed untethered to the grim realities of the world, putting his rhetoric at odds with his actions. Clinton’s optimistic vision is less soaring, less idealistic, less transformative in its goals. Perhaps that will turn out to be well suited to our own diminished expectations of America’s ability to shape the world beyond its borders.
In many ways, Traub’s assessment matches Clinton’s self-assessment. The line of hers that stood out from the first presidential debate was “I’m a progressive. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”
It also makes her newfound opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership all that more puzzling. The stated reason for that opposition was the lack of provisions to currency manipulation — except that it turns out, hey, there is a side agreement on currency manipulation. The Peterson Institute for International Economics’ Fred Bergsten and Jeffrey Schott take a look at it, and note the following:
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has achieved an important distinction in the annals of debates over trade policy. It is the first US trade agreement accompanied by a declaration on macroeconomic policies and exchange rates. The provisions of that declaration, released with the TPP text on November 5—especially taken together with new legislation pending in the Congress—should strengthen the US Treasury Department’s ability to deter currency manipulation by our trading partners, including future members of the TPP. While not legally enforceable, the commitments in the declaration are far-reaching in ruling out competitive devaluations and persistent exchange rate misalignments. In addition, the requirements for more transparency and public disclosure of data on exchange rate policies, including currency intervention, should make the “naming and shaming” of manipulators more effective….[T]he Joint Declaration substantially meets the negotiating objectives set out in the [Trade Promotion Authority authorizing legislation]. Along with the Bennet-Hatch-Carper amendment to the Customs and Enforcement Act, the Treasury should now become more effective in deterring TPP countries from embarking on new episodes of currency manipulation. Added together, these features of the TPP enhance the trade deal’s benefits for the United States and the stability of the world economy.
So, to sum up, for a candidate who wants to get things done, TPP looks like it gets a fair amount done. It perfectly captures the “politics of the possible” that Clinton is trying to project. There is no genuine policy motivation for her opposition — its grounded in the politics of protecting her left flank.
Clinton skated through the first Democratic Party debate without any TPP questions, and I do hope she gets asked about it Saturday night. That’s particularly true since, according to the Economist, “tomorrow’s trickiest obstacles may be questions from the moderator, John Dickerson of CBS.” Indeed, Clinton is in a commanding position among Democrats, with a commanding lead in the polls, endorsements, and even superdelegates. As the overwhelming front-runner, her policy views should be held close to the fire and examined for all their inconsistencies.
Now is the moment when I would ordinarily rip Clinton’s hypocrisy on this issue for all it’s worth. The thing is, though, for any self-respecting mainstream policy wonk, the depressing fact is that Clinton is approaching TINA status — there is no alternative. As I noted Thursday, it’s not like the Republican Party’s economic policy platform is any better than Clinton’s — in fact, it’s demonstrably worse. And the reactions among the GOP candidates to the TPP do not provide any reasons to be any more sanguine:
.@CarlyFiorina: "How can this TPP trade deal possibly be good? It's 30 chapters long and no one has even read the deal."
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) November 12, 2015
Here’s a crazy thought, Ms. Fiorina — why not delegate some staff to read the actual friggin’ agreement rather than whinging about its length?!
Really? @realDonaldTrump Claims the #TPP Is a Nefarious Plot by #China. Fact: China Is Not Part of TPP. #amateurhour https://t.co/zHMYEow4AZ
— Andrew Erickson 艾立信 (@AndrewSErickson) November 11, 2015
Meanwhile, this is the substance of one leading GOP candidate’s comments on the other front-runner in Iowa last night:
No wonder GOP establishment types are freaking out:
Less than three months before the kickoff Iowa caucuses, there is growing anxiety bordering on panic among Republican elites about the dominance and durability of Donald Trump and Ben Carson and widespread bewilderment over how to defeat them….The apprehension among some party elites goes beyond electability, according to one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about the worries.“We’re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job,” this strategist said. “It’s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?”Angst about Trump intensified this week after he made two comments that could prove damaging in a general election. First, he explained his opposition to raising the minimum wage by saying “wages are too high.” Second, he said he would create a federal “deportation force” to remove the more than 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.
So to sum up the situation that a centrist wonk like myself is in right now:
- Clinton’s views on key policy issues seem somewhat flawed;
- Her policy flaws will not be debated because she seems to be the only grown-up in the race.
This is an incredibly frustrating situation. One can only hope that Trump’s meltdown last night and Carson’s meltdown over the past week clear the decks for GOP candidates who actually know something about policy. Because the country, and Clinton, need a genuine policy debate. And right now we’re far, far away from that ideal.