The Latest Narrative - The Existential Crisis That Is Hillary Clinton

The recent election debates have created a new narrative within the news cycle. That narrative is that a critical look at Hillary Clinton is required above anything else. This circumspection would naturally be suggested by the speaking points of her Democratic party challengers as she is the front runner to be displaced. But, the same story is evolving on within the Republican debates. Her ability to rally the Republican base is becoming evident.

The Republican debates have focused on her as if she represents the key threat to the United States. The 2008 election has shifted away from whether existing policies should be further prosecuted to whether Hillary Clinton represents an existential crisis to the Republic were she elected. That narrative temporarily serves the purpose of her Democratic party challengers and the longer-term interests of her Republican rivals.

However, does it serve the national interest? I would argue no.

The current election cycle represents a decision around whether to continue with existing policies or whether to change course. Most Republican candidates by and large represent an extension of Bush policies from both a domestic and foreign policy perspective. Is this in dispute? Most Republican candidates have not repudiated much of the Bush record which suggests they are in agreement with the policies and would extend these policies should they be elected. Now, it's fair for all parties involved to provide the public with a view of what a hypothetical Clinton presidency would entail. However, the same evaluation should be made of all viable contenders. When doing so, the debate would more clearly be about whether a continuation of policies is what is desired versus a "change of course" as represented by the Clinton candidacy or any other alternative vision for the country.

If a Clinton presidency would represent an existential crisis for the US, to what extent would a Guiliani candidacy or a Romney candidacy. That's only fair to ask.

The decision in 2008 is more accurately represented by a decision for extending current policies versus engaging in a significant change in policies. To the extent Hillary Clinton represents substantial changes that may be viewed as having a negative impact on national interests, it's fair to raise these concerns. But the same conerns should be raised with regard to the implications of extending the policies of the Bush presidency...why? because that's essentially the question being answered in the 2008 election based on how the candidates have portrayed themselves so far.

Sphere: Related Content