Hillary Clinton is the change. That assertion may seem far-fetched when so much reporting and commentary have portrayed the Democratic presidential nominee as the establishment candidate. Donald Trump, her Republican opponent, describes her so. Many young voters have little conception of the change she pushed and the many advances she helped to achieve in a public career that goes back to the 1970s.
Yet such change for the better in education and health care, for children and the disabled, are not what this editorial page has in mind in assessing her run for the presidency this year. She represents a break from the recent past.
Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama succeeded in capturing the White House because, in large part, they portrayed themselves as outsiders. The argument went that they would be less burdened by the polarized culture of Washington and thus better positioned to get things done.
What soon became evident is that wasn’t enough. If Obama ran into an iron wall of Republican resistance, he also did not do enough to build helpful relationships. Except in rare cases, Washington is all about checks and balances. Change comes incrementally, more so when the parties disagree sharply as they do today.
It helps that a president knows well how Washington works, that the dysfunction stems not so much from corrupting political money but from a failure to govern as the system is designed, requiring give and take, compromise.
It matters that a president understands the dynamics of policy and the bureaucracy and has developed ties to the other side. Remember the praise Republicans had for Clinton during her Senate years? No doubt, she would face fierce opposition, most of time. Yet her candidacy offers an opening for making progress — on such matters as immigration, mental health care and investment in public works. So let’s try something different, a president who arrives with established skills in the ways of the capital.
We recommend the election of Hillary Clinton on Nov. 8.
There is another element of Clinton the agent of change, and it indirectly reflects her quest to become the first woman elected president. The face of the country is changing, more diverse, minorities moving toward a majority. The idea isn’t to elect a woman because she is a woman. Rather in choosing a woman so prepared for the job, the range of opportunities expands for all those long on the outside.
The Clinton resume is well known, including first lady and key adviser to her husband, U.S. senator and secretary of state. The Trump campaign has attempted to portray her four years as the top diplomat as a failure. Actually, she proved a success in repairing the country’s image (damaged in the Bush years). If there were setbacks (the deaths and aftermath in Libya), the record features more achievements, for instance, arranging the sanctions that resulted in the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Clinton has proved plenty tough enough, all while alert to an increasingly integrated globe, aware of its layers and complexities and the value of American engagement and leadership. She knows how to build influence in the world as it is.
An election is a choice, and at home, Clinton also far exceeds her opponent in vision, knowledge and policy. Here, she is about change, if not the sweeping — and unrealistic — variety. Take trade. If her evolution has been convenient, a closer examination suggests a way forward, both opening markets and meeting the needs of those harmed in the global marketplace.
She recognizes that addressing income inequality requires a collection of approaches, from paid family leave to easing the burden of college costs to altering a tax code that favors the wealthy. All of her policies are not fully formed. What they reflect is something this page has noted in the past, that what matters in a presidency is its general tilt, evident in Clinton when she talks about such things as race and justice, the threat of climate change and who should sit on the Supreme Court.
This is a flawed candidacy. She struggles as a campaigner. She must get better as a communicator, less the impression of packaged and better in dealing with the question of trust, even if the criticism is overblown. The “scandals” of the past have yielded little. The email fuss lacks context. She erred, obviously. She also operated in a government far too eager to classify documents. Nothing has surfaced to suggest pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation.
The focus belongs on the breadth of her record and what Hillary Clinton would bring to the presidency, her appreciation of what it takes to govern and her grasp of how to do so. She is resilient, tested and calm. She knows her way around the partisan battles. The country doesn’t need a revolution. It isn’t a wreck. It requires the right brand of change.