Clinton, you need to have a private and public position on policy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Oct 10, 2016.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    This oft-cited line takes on a different meaning when seen in more context ...

    Sounds scary right? But look at how she ends ...
    I believe in evidence-based decision making too. I want to know what the facts are too. I like politicians like Hillary Clinton that, "try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work."

    Thanks wikileaks for revealing that side of HRC.
     
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    Are you saying the Trumpets are taking this out of context? Shocking!
     
  3. kapolani macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    I can buy that.

    But, why even have a public vs private persona?

    Lay out the facts. Show this evidence based decision making.

    Why the subterfuge?
     
  4. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    Good question.

    My guess is: Possibly because the public might not like the extra or differing details in the private edition, or if a politician does/accepts something in public for the genuine well-being of the country but personally has certain reservations or disagreements... the goal is always the benefit of the country, regardless of personal belief and sometimes making compromises. Anyone in such a position would have an internal struggle at some point?
     
  5. kapolani macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    The goal should be for the benefit of the country, but Clinton has always been painted as a 'me first' sort of person.

    For transparency there should never be a public and private persona.

    If you have nothing to hide and you are supposed to have the country's best interests at heart there should be total transparency so there can be no ambiguity about the way you do business.

    The Clintons have always been looked at with scrutiny because of their shadiness, this makes it look even worse.
     
  6. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #6
    She has only been painted that way by Republicans who are trying to make her look bad.
     
  7. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #7
    She does that all by herself. Republicans didn't make her or her foundation take cash from Russia for uranium deals. Republicans didn't make her lie about the reasoning for the attack on Benghazi, Republicans didn't make her create her own server in her bathroom, Republicans didn't make her delete hundreds of thousands of e-mails.
     
  8. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #8
    They didn't make her do anything. However, anything she does they view as vile and evil.
     
  9. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #9
    Well I mean, yeah. She is.
     
  10. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #10
    How is it subterfuge? You can hold a personal opinion and yet follow law that differs from it. You must uphold the law if you are a public offficial. If you don't think a law will be Constitutional then you can veto a bill rather than pass it, and if it passes anyway, then advocate for its challenge in in the courts system, and if it is upheld at the Supreme Court level, then acquiesce in upholding it or resign. That's how the rule of law works here and we see that play out often in state legislatures.

    Yes, there are efforts every day to observe letter of law and violate its spirit. Food for another thread...

    What you do publicly beyond letter of law as an elected official (or candidate) may indicate a personal difference or not, i.e. you can be a governor who opposes the death penalty yet abides by the current law. Such a person may or may not also publicly advocate for repeal of the death penalty.

    Most elected officials who are opposed to the death penalty or to abortion, to pick two controversial issues, will probably make their personal views known but also emphasize they will follow the law -- since they must swear to do so upon taking office.

    As far as policy proposals, it makes perfect sense in a polarized electorate not to publicize personal views that may be at odds with proposed policy. We are not currently a nation that knows how to discuss much of anything without pegging out two and only two posssible positions: For/Against, Mine/Yours, Possible/NoWay and so forth. We hear a word and we stick a tag on whoever uttered it.

    So if, for instance, you personally prefer a single payer option for healthcare and yet realize your nation is unprepared to adopt it, you might well opt to look for other ways to improve an existing system if you're a legislator or the President. To do that does not require you to get up on a table first and say "I'd much rather have single payer here but since I know half you you hate that idea, how about this instead?"

    I mean you'd lose half the country at the words "Single Payer" and the other half at "...but..." -- so it's better in such a case to just propose whatever it is you think it feasible to propose, and if your private view is solicited, then determine how you want to indicate that your personal views don't particularly (or at all) figure into the legislation you are proposing.

    People get that. How? Because as adults we all know situations we are not fond of that exist because they're legal and not a high priority for trying to adjust. I'd like free tacos and pizza. It's not going to happpen. I'm not going to ask for it, either. I might ask for zoning laws not to impede competition among small businesses. Why should I single out pizza and tacos, my personal preferences. I might just leave it at "small businesses" and let people imagine their own preferences. Maybe you'd like another gas station. We can work together on the zoning law. That's... good politics. People can argue later when your damn gas stations pop up on all four corners. By then I'll be building another taco store at the north end of town...

    So I feel a politician who advocates publicly for reform of healthcare legislation does not have to preface her remarks every day with a reminder that she might personally favor single payer legislation. What's the point? As a private opinion holder, she's one person having an opinion that does not stand up to the opposition of the insurance companies and pharma lobbies. As a legislator or administrator, she is sensible enough to propose some changes publicly that are actually feasible.

    And in closing let me say i haven't a clue if Clinton actually favors single payer. I'd think probably not...
     
  11. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #11
    In late 2008, the original Emancipation Proclamation signed by Abraham Lincoln can to the Ronald Reagan Presidential library at a time when on a clear day I could see the library from my bedroom window. So we went to see it. How could I resist going to see it? This was well before the 2012 Spielberg film.

    Distilled down. One of the key themes of the exhibit was this tension between the position Lincoln had arrived to personally and privately (abolition) and what he could actually get others to support (far more limited measures) and the tension between these two positions. One private and held between close confidants and one publicly taken. It presented many letters between Lincoln and his confidants and many other contemporary sources in the context of the US Civil War in an exquisite way.

    It's sad to think that the museum goes of the future may have to deal with multimedia displays and 140 character tweets and edits in black Sharpie instead of excerpts from beautiful handwritten letters.

    The Wikipedia article on Lincoln and Slavery presents some of this in an XXI century digestible format.

    Honest Abe would be spinning in his grave if he saw what had become of his Grand Old Party.

    B
     

Share This Page