Hillary's tactic of "playing it safe" politically

Jonathan Allen of Vox news says that Hillary is being "Clintonian" in playing it safe on controversial issues -- meaning that she is selectively choosing some progressive issues to speak out on, but just as many she is avoiding taking a position yet.

It's called "triangulation," perfected by Bill Clinton, where he would wait for others to stake out a position and then stand in the middle.  Allen says that this "reinforces the often asserted (but sometimes unfair) criticism that she doesn't have core convictions. . . . that she is less than trustworthy."   He continues:

"It's true that Clinton has rolled out a string of positions that please constituencies on the left, from support for LGBT rights and voting rights to repudiating the results of her husband's 1994 anti-crime law and vowing to enhance President Obama's executive action on immigration. . . . But Clinton has been very selective about how she's courted her party's progressive base, speaking as much to identity politics as to actual policy. On some of the more controversial policy questions, she's taking a pass."

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post said: "The left-leaning positions she isn’t taking are as significant as the ones she has endorsed."

Polls find that voters have greater faith in her ability to lead than in her willingness to tell the truth.     Half of women and nearly two in three men think she's not trustworthy.   In contrast, almost 60% of nonwhite adults do believe she's honest and trustworthy.   And, overall, she leads every potential Republican opponent in a one on one matchup.  

Still, one has to wonder if this "untrustworthy" meme is being blown out of proportion.   While in the abstract it is the top quality voters say they look for in a president, Republicans and conservative pundits have turned it into a reflex criticism of Hillary Clinton.   Their repetitive mantras have perhaps created a word-association link that influences people's later answers to a poll question.    Will this matter as much in the voting booth?

For example, all the stories now are citing her having been part of the groundwork while Secretary of State for the current Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement -- but criticizing her for now dodging taking a position.    So they're saying that she's not trustworthy for having changed her position.

But here's how she has actually defined her current position in a statement released by her campaign:  "Hillary Clinton believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests: first, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages, and create more good jobs at home. . . .  Second, it must also strengthen our national security. We should be willing to walk away from any outcome that falls short of these tests. The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade’s sake."

Now there's nothing incompatible with her having worked for a trade agreement and now having reservations about the final negotiated form that she has not been part of since leaving office two years ago.

Aside from that, it is politically a hot seat to take a position at this point, as Allen points out:  "Senior aides have since said that she doesn't need to take a position until the deal is finalized and the fine print can be analyzed. . . .  as it stands, the vast majority of House Democrats — and party activists — oppose the deal.  If Clinton supports it, she'll disappoint them and give more fuel to Sanders and O'Malley, both of whom oppose the pact. If she opposes it, she'll have flip-flopped and turned her back on Obama."

So, at the risk of adding to the "untrustworthy" narrative, it's only smart politically to wait and see.   Besides, with the administration's strict rules about who can read the actual agreement and zero permission to talk about the details in public, she may not actually know what's in the final details.

Allen ends with the downside of waiting to take positions, which I'm sure her strategists and she are fully aware of in making their decision:

"It's tempting to think that Clinton has plenty of time because it's early in the presidential election cycle or because her Democratic rivals probably don't have what it takes to beat her in a primary. But by sidestepping important policy questions, she's giving oxygen to doubts about her sincerity. That's a character question that should be familiar to Clinton fans who watched Barack Obama turn honesty into a weapon against her in 2008, and it's one that crosses party lines. 

"Ultimately, Clinton is going to have to choose a side on these issues. The longer she takes, the more it looks like she's afraid of commitment."

On the other hand, it may also say that she's a careful, smart politician who sometimes decides that it's better to let her pragmatism outweigh her idealism.    This is an unending conflict for anyone interested in governing and politics:   when to let your idealistic self lead and when to let your practical side take half a loaf instead of losing it all.   I waver from one side of that line to the other continually. 

It's the divide that separates me from my progressive, idealistic friends who criticize President Obama for having "sold out" and abandoned their hopes for transformational change.   It's clear to me that he has learned that Washington is a hard place to ever get all you want and that it's better to compromise and get part of it and keep working for the rest.

Ralph