The Clinton Betrayal

Those who elected Obama also voted to reaffirm traditional marriage in Florida and in California. To end legal discrimination against working-class white men in Colorado. And not to liberalise gambling in Missouri or in Ohio. They included almost everyone in the black church. They included the clear majority of Catholics. In a word, they were moral and social conservatives.

They are Democrats for reasons of economic populism and foreign policy realism. Which are, of course, the right reasons. Yes, lots of liberals voted for Obama, too. But lots of liberals voted for Gore. Lots of liberals voted for Kerry. And lots of liberals would have voted for Clinton.

Integral to all three of economic populism, moral and social conservatism, and foreign policy realism are that immigration must be strictly legal, that legal immigration must be strictly limited, and that English must remain the only language of the United States. No one feels more strongly about these things than African-Americans, ninety-five per cent of whom voted for Obama. By contrast, Hispanics, especially in the South West, voted for him less than had been expected, preferring John “Amnesty” McCain instead. (Both groups voted for traditional marriage in California and Florida. Hence the picketing of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, attendees at which have no vote in states where they do not live, but are very rarely either black or Hispanic.)

Huge numbers of people are now registering as Democrats. Hard Leftists, ultra-liberals and peaceniks were already registered Democrats. Hardline capitalists, racist rednecks and neoconservative hawks would never join a party led by Obama. So these must be the economically populist, morally and socially conservative foreign policy realists who have put Obama into the White House. And who could just as easily put him back out again.

Therefore, the nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is a betrayal. Clinton is a throwback to her husband’s era of NAFTA and GATT, and look how those have ended up. She is obviously anything but a moral and social conservative.

As a Senator, she voted for the Iraq War. As a candidate, she was beloved of AIPAC. And she offered an American nuclear shield to “protect” against Iran (where there are more women than men at university) the feminist paradises of Saudi Arabia (whence came the 9/11 attacks), Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, all generous benefactors of her campaign.

The Democratic nominee is going to beat Sarah Palin anyway. But Obama has no automatic right to be that nominee. He must earn that nomination by delivering on all three of economic populism, moral and social conservatism (at the very least, he must not make matters any worse), and foreign policy realism. The nomination of Clinton augurs very ill indeed on all three fronts.

In 2012, one American election will really matter. That conducted in and as the Democratic primaries. Obama needs to face a very serious challenge indeed. And he needs to know even now that he will be facing it.