Daily Times

On November 8, 2016, if circumstances permit, I will vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton to become the next president of the US. Even though the nomination process for presidential candidates has just started and the actual election is still a long ways away, so far, Hillary Clinton seems to be a favourite for becoming the candidate of the Democratic Party for the presidential election. On the Republican side, the nomination process is still wide open though John Ellis ‘Jeb’ Bush, brother of former president George W Bush and the son of former president George H Bush is a leading candidate, at least at this time. Here, a quick aside. In Pakistan we keep obsessing about political dynasties but it is quite possible that the next US election for president might just represent the Bushes against the Clintons, two political dynasties fighting it out once more.
Before I go to my reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton, I must first dwell a bit on Jeb Bush. Jeb is a former governor of the US state of Florida. Unfortunately for Jeb, the Bush brand was severely tarnished by George W Bush’s rather unfortunate intervention in Iraq and the fact that he is still considered the worst US president of at least this century. However, if we ignore his ‘pedigree’, Jeb does bring three important advantages to the electoral table. First, being a ‘popular’ ex governor from Florida, a state that is considered vital for a Republican to win the presidency, as the Republican candidate he could swing the general election towards the Republicans by winning his home state. Second, being a Hispanic by marriage he could bring in Hispanic votes to the Republican Party, not a majority but enough to make a difference. The Hispanic vote so far has been solidly pro-Democratic Party. Third, and this is a debatable point, Jeb represents the centre of the Republican Party and, over the last many election cycles, Republicans have chosen a centrist rather than a hard right candidate for the presidential elections.
However, except for Jeb’s older brother in his re-election, no Republican has won the popular vote since the 1988 general elections when Bush the elder won against a hapless Dukakis. Unless the Democratic Party fields another Dukakis, the chances are that the Democrats will most likely win the popular vote once again. As such the Republican strategy rests not on winning the popular vote but rather the electoral college. Perhaps when we are closer to the actual US election I might expend some ink on the difference between winning the popular vote and winning the electoral college.
Let me talk just a bit about my favourite Republican candidate, Senator Rand Paul. What is most attractive to me from a political perspective is that Rand Paul represents the libertarian streak in US politics. Political libertarianism goes beyond small government and the laissez faire economics that have been subsumed by conservative Republicans, especially those that are now members of the Tea Party. Paul also accepts the libertarian idea that the US has no business providing aid to other countries or getting involved in foreign wars. Paul is a social libertarian and as such almost veers to the left on many social issues. The most important reason behind why I would like to see Paul represent the Republicans is that his presence will take many social issues off the table. We might then see a truly robust debate about three important issues. First being the role of the US as an international ‘ubermensch’, second, whether the security regime that is undermining civil liberties within the US should be severely curtailed and, third, whether the entire safety net built into the US system should not just be replaced by some ‘namby pamby’ free market solutions, but rather be abandoned in its entirety. Here, I must admit to some Democratic Party sympathies. A contest between Hillary and Paul just might bring a Democratic Party victory similar to the one Lyndon Johnson won over Barry Goldwater in 1964. Even though the Republican Party lost badly, it did give rise to a new brand of conservatism that has been lacking the past. It also brought a new realignment of politics that eventually gave Republicans control of ‘Old Dixie’.
So now, finally to Hillary Rodham Clinton. I supported her candidacy eight years ago but that was not her time. Hillary has lived through the labels of being a feminist warrior, a jilted wife, a first lady of Arkansas and then of the US. After leaving the White House as first lady, she was twice elected as US senator from New York and subsequently served for four years as the US secretary of state. She is about as committed a progressive Democrat that one can find today. And becoming a grandmother she perhaps now has the appropriate attitude towards the future of the world on issues like global warming and environmental degradation.
Even if we put aside all the advantages of having a Democrat in the White House, there are some more pertinent reasons to support any Democrat including Hillary in the upcoming general elections. First, Hillary will, as president support, protect and possibly expand the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Second, if the US and Iran reach some sort of an agreement Hillary will accept it and follow through on it. Hillary will also defend existing safety net programmes meant for the poor from privatisation. Of course, any ‘generic’ Democrat will probably do the same but it seems that Hillary has a good chance of winning the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. As far as Hillary’s faults are concerned, there is no public figure that has been as extensively examined as she has been. Hillary is not perfect and she has never claimed that she is. But she is without doubt well qualified to become president of the US.

The author is a former editor of the Journal of Association of Pakistani descent Physicians of North America (APPNA)