This week, the Democratic-Candidates-not-named-Hillary-Clinton took the New York Senator to task for what they and pundits have characterized as doublespeak. Check out this video from the John Edwards campaign for an example:
The piece de resistance was Hillary's answer to a question posed about giving immigrants driver's licenses. As the Edwards video points out, it sounds like Hillary is for Governor Spitzer's program to give immigrants licenses, but at the same time doesn't approve. Thus, the reasoning goes: Hillary is a shifty calculated politician who doesn't speak her values, but instead avoids saying anything that would cost her a point in the polls.
This isn't a new argument (her husband was known as "The Great Waffler" around my house as a teenager), but in Hillary's case it's untrue and unfair. In the particular case of the driver's license, Clinton was saying that she supports the Governor's efforts because something is better than nothing, but she doesn't think it's the best solution, and maybe the federal government ought to be doing something about this. The blunder, however is of the rhetorical variety. And while it scored Hillary's challengers some points in the debate: characterizing Hillary as a doubletalker actually demonstrates that these candidates fail to see an essential truth about governing: the ones who are really good at it are often the most conflicted.
Theodore Roosevelt was notorious for speeches and letters which argued both sides of the issue at hand. His policies mirrored that temper. He was part of the Knickerbocker elite and spent much of his political career trying to reform the system that brought about his ascendancy. He's remembered as the first conservationist, but lavished the walls of his White House with hunting trophies. He steadfastly maintained that America's foreign interests extended only to America, while increasing vastly increasing the scope of what "America" meant (namely, the whole of the Western Hemisphere). His ability to bridge the tension between two opposing ideas is a large part of what made his presidency successful.
Bill Clinton's presidency was notorious for it's contradictory actions. A professor of mine in college called him "the best Republican president we've ever had" and the Seattle Times summed him up as he left office by saying " He was the Great Empathizer yet at times was self-absorbed. He demonized his Republican opponents yet freely stole their best ideas. He preached tolerance toward gays as a matter of principle, yet, as a matter of politics, signed the law banning gay marriage and boasted about it in ads that he purchased on Christian radio." Yet, he's remembered today fondly (though admittedly, that probably has a lot to do with his successor).
Still, faulting Hillary for being a "doubletalker" or "flip-flopper" ultimately doesn't work. We've seen what happens when we elect leaders who relentlessly maintain one point of view despite changing realities. We've spent eight years under a President whose singular vision of the globe simply ignores any opposition or challenges to that view. That Hillary is capable of holding two ideas in her head at the same time is encouraging. It shows a mind fully engaged in the issues and a thoughtful approach that recognizes that situations evolve over time; qualities you hope to find in the leader of the free world. Who among us doesn't live a life free of contradiction? Most of us swim in it, as hard and fast realities are as fleeting as the phrase "Mission: Accomplished". Hillary seems uniquely suited to balancing contradictions in a way that make them workable. In fact, it may be her best talent.
The issue with Hillary, however: Is what is she striking the balance for? I believe she can make the government sail, but in what direction? Hillary has become so preoccupied with winning America over, in allowing us to understand her own internal contradictions (loving wife to a philandering husband, warm and domestic while being capable of waging war, an insider who is going to break the system by beating it at its own game) that she's failed to articulate just what Hillary Clinton's America looks like. What is the bright shining star she plans on guiding the ship of state with? There's talking points, but very little vision.
There's a moment in Tony Kushner's Angels in America where the angels are described as "fabulous bureaucrats". It's a description that fits Hillary. Like Kushner's angels, Clinton seems extraordinarily adept at the business of politics, but lacks the imagination required in this unique historical moment. All leaders compromise. All good leaders understand contradiction is necessary to politics, the art of the actual . All great leaders muster the contradictory forces around them to serve a greater cause; because what's a leader with nowhere to lead? It's a question Hillary needs to answer for herself, and for us.
