At long last, we’ve finally come down to it. Campaign promises made and already broken; advertisements running at the most inopportune times; debates about trivial matters instead of substantive issues. All ending tomorrow.
Barring something really amazing, I’ll be casting my vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton. I was already leaning that way, anyway, as you know if you read my critiques of Obama elsewhere on this blog. In simplest terms, I have more confidence in her than I have in him. She understands issues better than he does, based on all the evidence I’ve seen. I will vote for him, certainly, if he wins the nomination, but she’s my preferred candidate.
In this morning’s Philly Inquirer, she scored another point. An article castigating the Bush administration for its utter failure to act on global warming claims that all three viable presidential candidates have similar policy stances on the issue. Not exactly. Clinton, in a rare instance of getting the last word, said the one thing I’ve been waiting to hear for, oh, fifteen years or so. She makes the crucial point that legislation will only go so far to solve energy and global warming problems; the real change needs to happen at the level of our daily behaviors. Consume less; drive less; turn off the lights; be smart about what you buy and why.
Conservatives who attack the government for over-regulating industry should be glad to hear HRC say this. If they really believe that individual behavior is the foundation on which society should sit, then here’s Hillary Clinton saying just the same thing. Government regulation of industry would look a whole lot different if consumers rejected corporate hegemony and ideology in our daily practices. If corporations actually had to answer to the market instead of dictating it the way they act like they do now, then the government’s role in making sure they’re responsible would be much reduced.
I don’t doubt that Barack Obama would disagree with this reasoning, but he hasn’t said so. Too late.