I’m out of words when it comes to this election. So I’ll take the liberty of re-posting something I wrote last month. Along with this post from last night, it captures my view of the person we’re likely to elect president today and, in the final paragraph, my view of how we should respond to her election:
“Stronger together” is Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan. Like most of what comes out of Hillary’s mouth, it is insincere. Clinton has written off approximately 20 percent of the American public as deplorable and irredeemable. Her top aides express contempt for traditional Catholics, evangelicals, and Jews who support Israel.
But let’s look beyond the inevitable Clinton insincerity and ask whether, under a Hillary presidency, America would be stronger together.
We must first ask what makes America strong. I believe there are four main elements.
First, America must have a strong military. Second, America must have a shared belief that it is great, and not just “because it is good.” Third, America must hold its citizens to high standards of personal conduct. Fourth, America must be a meritocracy and must judge merit without regard to extraneous factors such as race, ethnicity, and gender.
Would an America unified behind Hillary Clinton’s left-liberal leadership and vision satisfy these requirement? I don’t think so.
First, America’s military is in steep decline under President Obama. Marco Rubio laid out some of the sorry details here. In all likelihood, this decline would continue under Hillary Clinton.
Second, Hillary Clinton’s stated position on American greatness is that “America is great because it is good.” Coming from Hillary, this tired phrase is code for the claim that American greatness depends on policies such as open borders and liberal largess.
The real left-liberal view of American greatness is even more disturbing. It holds that America is anything but great. Political leaders like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have manifested this view by running around the world apologizing for American foreign policy.
Meanwhile, under the guidance of left-liberal intellectuals, the rejection of American greatness has become the organizing principle behind a new way of teaching of American history to top high schools students.
Can America be great if it teaches students that it isn’t even good?
Third, Hillary Clinton and her fellow left-liberals want to hold Americans to lower standards of personal conduct than those currently embodied in the criminal law. They want to release criminals, set lower sentences, and decriminalize certain conduct. They also want to impose substantially less discipline on disruptive students.
Their main argument in favor of these measures is that certain segments of the population bear a “disproportionate” burden as a result of current standards. Thus, they want standards lowered because some groups have difficulty adhering to them. Such laxity won’t make America stronger; it will weaken us.
Finally, Hillary Clinton and her fellow left-liberals oppose a meritocracy in which merit is judged without regard to factors like race, ethnicity, and gender. Instead, they favor a spoils system in which a share of rewards — e.g., admission to college and accession to jobs — is set aside for African-Americans, Latinos, and (where necessary) females. This system produces a lowering of quality and a sense of entitlement antithetical to a strong America.
For these reasons, America won’t be “stronger together” under Hillary Clinton’s leadership. Rather, it will be stronger if those who oppose the left-liberal policies and viewpoints described above maintain a status apart. That way, we can uphold a vision of what a strong America truly is like and, as Hillary’s America begins to unravel, perhaps persuade a critical mass of Americans of the soundness of our vision.