Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders
By Saeed Qureshi
Dallas, TX
With a backlog of the double-digit defeat in the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton bounced back with renewed vigor and robust confidence during the sixth debate of the Democratic Party race and the second exclusively between Mrs. Hillary Clinton and Senator Sanders. The debate was held on February 11, 2016 at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Milwaukee is the largest city in the State of Wisconsin.
While both the candidates were quite aggressive in describing their policies as the next president of the United States, Mrs Clinton appeared to be more composed, persuasive and eloquent. She responded to the jabs of her Democratic opponent in a calm and unruffled tone. In response to the personal salvo from Mr Sanders such as “Secretary Clinton, you’re not in the White House yet,” Hillary chose to deflect it by ignoring the comments.
Comparing the merits of both the Democratic contenders, one may point out that Sanders if elected would be a fresh entrant into the power corridors as well as occupant of the highest and most prestigious position of the president of the United States.
If elected, Mr Sanders would be the first Jewish president of the United States. He is known as a proponent of socialism. He may face stiff resistance from well-entrenched private enterprises and business cartels in implementing his socialist agenda.
Understandably, there could be hurdles in his way from the Congress where the Republicans, who are sponsors of huge businesses and financial enterprises, would pose a challenge.
Even their Democratic cohorts may oppose Sanders’ agenda of change. Senator Sanders’ socialist manifesto encompasses no tax breaks to billionaires and “creation of millions of jobs for low-income kids so that they’re not hanging out on the street corners.”
In his debates, Sanders’ entire focus has been on overhauling the economy, taxation on the affluent classes and expanding health-care. It means that in a capitalist economy based upon free enterprise, he wants to expand and enlarge the role of the government.
He aims at diminishing the influence of huge business enterprises like Wall Street, insurance companies, and banks as well as industrial and business cartels. He wants Medicare and other social services to be under the control of the government; partially or wholly.
This is like a revolution although it cuts across the influence of the wealthy classes and cartels. His plan to extend and expand the government network would entail huge additional government spending for which he would increase taxes on the affluent sections.
Mrs Clinton, if elected, would be the first female president of the United States of America. She is a moderate and wants to bring about changes in the present setup of governance for which she claims to have ample experience and a package of far reaching reforms for the economic uplift of the country and for extending more benefits and services to the people.
In Mrs Clinton reckoning, Mr Sanders’ package of plans would cost the national exchequer additional trillions of dollars or 40 per cent over the existing spending. She claims that Senator Sanders was not being truthful in revealing the cost of the programs, such as, his proposed expansion of government healthcare.
On the volatile issue of the immigrants both seem to be on the same page. Both support a benign policy about immigration and maximum accommodation of the uprooted people from war-ridden societies. But their perception and plans differ in regard to their settlement.
Mr Sanders criticized Mrs Clinton for telling CNN in 2014 that the children who entered the United States from Central America should be sent back, which was taken by the Latinos with a great deal of bitterness.
However, Mrs Clinton clarified that she was not against children coming into United States. She merely wanted to convey to the parents that they should not send their children to America alone as they invariably fall into the hands of smugglers.
During their debate quite an interesting situation developed. The moderator asked both contenders to name their role model leaders. Mr Sanders named Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. In comparison, Hillary mentioned the legendary South African leader Nelson Mandela and Mr Obama. This was interpreted as a race-based choice: Sanders for white leaders and Hillary for none-whites.
As a senator Bernie Sanders is a very experienced person. In case of victory he would be one of the senior presidents. His advanced age (74) may hamper his decision-making powers. He is earnest about his ground-breaking reforms. On the contrary, Hillary Clinton is relatively younger (68). She possesses a reservoir of experience first as the first lady and second as the secretary of state in foreign affairs. By virtue of her being the Secretary of State (2009-2013) during the first tenure of president Obama, Mrs Clinton lays claim of having wider and extensive experience in the domain of Foreign Affairs.
Mr Sanders rebuts this claim by censuring Mrs Clinton’s 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq and for being responsible for the consequent ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya. H e alleged that her myopic and erroneous view on Libya and Iraq led to civil wars which are still raging.
On the most pressing question of discrimination against African-Americans in employment, education, housing and the criminal justice system, both Mrs. Hillary and Sanders seemed to be on the same page. Yet Secretary Clinton went beyond by denouncing the faith-based discrimination, especially against Muslims, whom she described as the first line of defense for the United States.
It appears that Mrs Clinton is focused on reinforcing her support among the minority population to dilute the influence and relative popularity of Senator Sanders among the youth, minorities and underprivileged, low income groups and working classes. ( The writer is a senior journalist and former editor of Diplomatic Times. He also served as a diplomat)
