Jan Schakowsky is a member of Congress who represents Illinois’ 9th Congressional District since 1998, and recently wrote a blog on HuffPost’s Politics page entitled: “Why This Progressive Is Really Excited About Hillary.”
Readers can see the post for themselves, but here’s my takeaway of the thesis point: Jan Schakowsky is excited for Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton is a pro-woman woman.
Given. No one (sane) ever suggested otherwise. And I, too, would love to see a real pro-woman woman as President of the United States. But my first choice candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, isn’t running.
If being pro-woman was all that it took to make you progressive, then Rep. Schakowsky would have a point. The problem with Clinton is not that she doesn’t tick the right policy boxes on paper, (she does, as does Bernie, O’Malley, and daresay Webb and Chafee) but that she is corrupt. Whatever principals or policies she may claim to endorse during election season can be bought or bargained away in office. Clinton says all the right things. But I have no faith that she will act on them.
Here’s some examples, along with sources:
- Despite Israeli objections, a consortium of American defense contractors, led by Boeing, would deliver $29B worth of arms to Saudi Arabia. Clearing the deal was a priority of then Secretary of State Clinton.
Clinton Foundation’s donors got weapons deals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. International Business Times, 5/26/15.
For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship, Washington Post, 4/13/2014.
Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation amid Russian Uranium Deal. New York Times, 4/23/1015
Hillary Clinton may be “liberal,” (though I doubt it, given her conservative economic views and Johnny-come-lately views on social issues such as gay rights), but she is certainly not “progressive” - the key distinction between the two being that progressives care about fixing the system of corruption that ensures that no matter who is in power, wealthy organized special interests always take precedence over the needs and interests of the American voter.
But then again, neither is Rep. Schakowsky. How can she be a progressive when, according to OpenSecrets.com, she got over $164k from lawyers and lobbyists during the 2014 election cycle (including campaign committee and leadership PAC contributions) She also received over $137k from the healthcare industry and $70k from pro-Israel groups. In total, she raised and spent $1.5M. That's an awful lot of favors to repay.
Of course, Jan Schakowsky can say I took those numbers out of context. And she would be right. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, even the "good ones," have to raise enormous amounts of money to be elected. All politicians are corrupt-ed. It's just that some, like Clinton, don't really care. My question “How can she be a progressive” was not a rhetorical device implying that Rep. Schakowsky was masquerading as a progressive. Rep. Schakowsky absolutely wants to be a progressive, and thinks of herself as a progressive, and if she wasn’t a member of Congress, would be a progressive. But considering the immense pressures that she must be under to raise millions of dollars from special interests, how can Rep. Schakowsky truly act progressive when in office, even though she clearly wants to?
Rep. Schakowsky, I acknowledge you have tried to be progressive. You’re a co-sponsor of the Government By the People Act (H.R. 20), John Sarbanes’ bill which would provide a matching funds system that is competitive to the current amount of money given out by special interests and lobbyists to campaigns. You’ve consistently opposed Citizens United.
What I think has happened, Representative, is that you are so thrilled about the possibility of a pro-woman woman becoming President that you have not stopped to consider that it might be better for women’s rights, equality, and welfare, if a progressive pro-woman man (like Sanders) was elected than a corrupt pro-woman woman.
My greatest fear is this: Hillary Clinton, once elected, will give no support to any real, plausible efforts to reform the system of corruption in the United States. Worse, even if reform somehow does make it onto the agenda, a President Clinton might veto any reform legislation that passes. Clinton is an opponent of reform - and therefore an opponent of progressivism.
The opposite of "progressive" isn't "conservative." (Nor, joking aside, is the opposite of "progress," "congress.") The opposite of "progressive" is "corrupt."
So, no, as a progressive, I’m not “excited” for a Clinton presidency. In fact, I would dread it.