President Obama’s promise to “turn the page on ugly partisanship in Washington” should have been a heartbreaking reminder in this election; it should have warned those running that attempting to compromise with a polarized Congress is a futile effort. Instead, it has become practically the central message of the leading Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Secretary Hillary Clinton embraces centrism to “get things done." As a result, she ignores the desires of her voters.
The Democratic Party has failed to absorb the most crucial lesson of the Obama administration: “reaching across the aisle” does not work with modern Republicans. Speakers of the House today follow the “Hastert Rule” in which the Speaker will not allow voting on a bill unless it is supported by the majority of the majority Party. This means that the only legislation Obama could pass during a Republican-controlled Congress had to be so universal that everyone supported it or so conservative that it greatly conflicted with the Democratic platform. In fact, some of the most substantial legislation over the last eight years, such as Obamacare and the stimulus package, was passed when Democrats controlled Congress. Under Republican control, Obama has been so hindered in passing bills that he has resorted to Executive Orders (which only reinterpret the ways an existing law is enforced) to affect change the most.
Despite the last eight years, leading Democrats continue to push Clinton as a “practical” candidate because of her centrism. However, her actual positions actually seem to matter much less than how she is perceived by the opposing party. This was also true for Obama, also a centrist.
Many Republicans painted Obama as a socialist, a communist, a tyrant, and even a Muslim Kenyan (people with whom they would never make deals in the climate of today’s partisan divide). In the same way, Republicans have already demonstrated their distaste for Clinton by launching a partisan investigation into her involvement in Benghazi (of which they still have yet to find anything damning). They have even gone to the lengths of calling her an “enabler” of her husband’s infidelities. How could Republicans possibly pass legislation with the woman on whom they pin Benghazi?
Hillary Clinton must realize that 2008 is long gone and that the American people desire a candidate who compromises with no one. Senator Bernie Sanders exemplifies this desire: his meteoric rise in the Democratic Party is largely due to his consistent (very left wing) positions as well as his criticism of Clinton's fluctuating ones. As he was previously an unknown to the Democratic electorate, Sanders’ explosion in popularity over a woman with years of high-profile political experience should teach Clinton that her base is ready for a change.
The 2016 election provides the United States with three possible leaders: a Democrat, a Republican, and a Donald Trump. Secretary Clinton cannot continue to be both of the first two. The previous eight years of Republican obstructionism coupled with the success of Bernie Sanders should demonstrate a Democratic desire for unapologetic progressivism, not politics that seek to please everyone. There is no such thing as pleasing everyone: eight years of political polarization despite Obama’s levelheaded centrism could not make that more clear. American disillusionment with “reaching across the aisle” should be a bullhorn in Clinton’s ear, blasting the message of her voters: Secretary Clinton, just be a Democrat!
