2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Mustn't we reevaluate our party since it is is going through a right wing realignment? [View all]H2O Man
(73,506 posts)Very well done. Thank you for this. Your OP ranks with the very best that DU has offered since I joined in 2003. In fact, it is of the high quality that was much more common years ago.
I cannot help but laugh when I read one of the first responses, that claimed that Hillary and the DNC are not right-wing, but instead are moderate. I had just been thinking of writing an OP that advocates using words correctly. Certainly, Hillary Clinton is good on some specific social issues. She tends to take liberal positions on "family issues." Despite her being slow in advocating for equal rights for some -- think marriage equality -- I suspect that most Democrats are comfortable with her current positions on social issues.
Yet, it is undeniable that she takes a pro-energy corporation stance that is neither liberal nor progressive when it comes to the environment. More, her stances on international trade policy depends upon what audience she is speaking to at the moment.
Equally unsettling is her pro-war positions on international matters. This is particularly true when it comes to the region known as the Middle East. It is a weak argument to say that this was simply because Bush and Cheney lied about the threat that Iraq posed to our nation. One need look no further than her years as Secretary of State to refute that lie.
By no coincidence, the combination of liberal in domestic policy, plus being a war hawk when it comes to the Middle East, is the very definition of neoconservatism. It is a group that includes both some republicans and some Democrats. This group has exercised an agenda that has done significant harm to our nation since the 1980s. It is sad to see forum members here pretending that under Hillary Clinton, neoconservatist policies would be a good thing.