It is in the nature of presidential elections in a democratic country that a candidate may find himself or herself forced to make changes in his or her electoral platform in order to win over the followers of a rival candidate or even the rival candidate himself. In the 2016 US electoral campaign, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton found herself having to alter her electoral platform, in the course of the nomination contest, to accommodate the left-of-center positions of her principal rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, in order to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination.
Over the years, in the course of her public life—as a social activist, governor’s wife, First Lady, US Senator and Secretary of State—Hillary Clinton has developed a strong and well-defined philosophy with firm views on social, political and economic issues. She entered the hustings sure about where she stood on the major issues facing a superpower with 320 million people manning the world’s No. 1 economy.
But US presidential campaigns are not conducted in a vacuum, and as the electoral season progressed, Hillary Clinton found herself facing an adversary who was scoring points with some sectors of the electorate—especially the youth and the blue-collar workers—on a number of issues.
On those issues, Hillary Clinton had always held firm views that were contrary to those held by Senator Sanders. But in the face of a persistent challenge from the Vermont legislator, she had to re-examine her positions on those issues.
One of the issues related to the national minimum wage. Former President Bill Clinton’s wife is not known for strong views on wages in general and on the national minimum wage in particular. But she was forced to align her views on the issue with Sanders’ views when she saw how the issue of a national minimum wage increase was resonating with blue-collar worker community. Now she is saying that she will work for such an increase when she is in the White House. Of course, the outcome of such an initiative will depend on whether the Democrats will be able to gain control of both houses of the US Congress.
The other major part of the Sanders’ electoral platform that Hillary Clinton was forced to adopt was the Senator’s position that international trade arrangements like the Obama administration-favored TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) hurt American exports and jobs and should be renegotiated and/or discontinued. As a member of the Obama administration and as the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had been presumed to be a supporter of the Obama administration’s foreign economic policies, including its policy on foreign trade agreements. That was to be expected in the absence of any indication from her of negative views on the subject.
In an effort to cement a reconciliation with the Sanders’ camp, Ms. Clinton agreed to a re-examination of TPP—a free-trade arrangement that encompasses all the major Pacific countries except China—and a reduction of US participation in multilateral trade deals. That position appears to have metamorphosed into outright opposition to TPP as it is currently structured.
What will happen to TPP in the event of a Clinton victory—something that now appears to be a near-certainty? Will she allow TPP to proceed, or will she turn her back on a commitment to Senator Sanders? If Hillary Clinton were to be inclined to turn her back on the commitment, it might be too late to take the US out of TPP. So much work has already gone into the structuring and formulation of TPP; it is all set to go.
My prediction is that, once elected, Hillary Clinton will give the order for the implementation of TPP. That will be the right decision.
E-mail: rudyromero777@yahoo.com
