Why would anyone default his or her vote to Hillary Clinton? Easy answer: she is the lesser of two evils; the devil we know, suggests the WSJ’s Daniel Henninger. But Mr. Henninger warns, before you commit “the sin of despair,” you might want to consider the fallout from a default vote.
- On the economy: Clinton will contribute nothing to lift the flat-lined aspirations of the eight Obama years.
- On Clinton mores: The list of examples is exhausting, but here’s another from the Washington Post. As senator, Mrs. Clinton pushed federal money to the Corning company on behalf of its emissions-reduction technology.
“Corning’s chief executive co-hosted a 2015 fundraiser for her. The company paid her $225,500 in 2014 to speak to Corning executives. Corning also has given more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, its records show.”
- On higher education: “It is not an overstatement to say that diversity offices are now running American higher education.” Why are “nominally sensible college presidents” rolling over like trained puppies to the PC mobs? “Resist and Washington will terminate their federal cash flow. … That is raw power.”
A President Clinton won’t rein in any of this. Accommodating the ascendant anti-intellectual left across America’s campuses is easy, because the institutions’ own leadership—presidents and trustees—don’t care. So why should she?
In fact, using the full “guidance” powers of the federal enforcement agencies inside Justice, Education, Labor and the EPA against the states and private institutions will be a primary and unaccountable weapon of the Clinton presidency.
Which gets us back to the unanswerable question: how did we end up with two such manifestly flawed presidential candidates?
