Watergate 2.0

Watergate was an event that roiled President Richard Nixon to leave office.  It involved a group of men who burglarized the Democratic Nation Committee headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C.  While Nixon did not commit the crime or direct it, Nixon chose to attempt to cover-up or prevent investigations of the crime.  It took investigative reporting, non-partisan political hearings, and cooperation of some independent minded men in the bureaucracy to expose the issues.  Nixon, conferring with Republicans, realized he could not avoid impeachment and, rather than fight, put the country in front of his personal interest and resigned.

Fast forward to 2016 and, we argue, this election cycle is Watergate 2.0.  However, in this version the press helps Nixon, the Republicans circle the wagons around Nixon, the bureaucracy covers for Nixon, and Nixon puts his interests in front of the country. In 2016 Hilary Clinton is Richard Nixon and Watergate 2.0 poses a great threat to our liberty and prosperity.

The framers designed the Constitution to separate power so that no man or group of men could consolidate power.  It also protected the most fundamental rights of freedom of speech and press to assure free men could speak to and against power.  But when government, press, and politicians conspire toward a political person or ideology, then freedom itself is at risk.

Clinton represents a collusion to consolidate power.  It is incredible that a candidate with a 30 year history of failure and corruption could advance to the highest political office, and doing so with relative ease.

Backers of Clinton argue this is a historic moment to elect the first woman president, and that she has the temperament and experience to effectively pursue her legislative agenda.  But electing a woman for a women’s sake is not the purpose of any election.  Looking at her tenure as Secretary of State there is a trail of failure that follows her in Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq and, of course, Benghazi.  Europe fared no better with the Russian intervention in Ukraine and China was allowed to expand its military in the South China Sea.

When assessing Clinton’s domestic policy she declared to be left of President Obama.  If we give credit to Obama policies for seven years of a growing economy, slower increases in the cost of healthcare expenses, lower  unemployment (U-3 Index) to under 5%, cutting the budget deficit in half, and high stock market, then we must also give him “credit” for the slowest economic growth since the Great Depression, the highest increase in health insurance premiums, the highest level of real unemployment (U-6 Index) of over 9% seven years after the recession ended and the lowest workforce participation since the 1970s, cutting the budget deficit to exceed the highest level previous to his taking office with a doubling of the debt to over $19 trillion, and providing low interest money to give the highest stock market in history and fueling the wealth of the richest Americans.

Regardless of who wins the office of president, either candidate will face a battle after election.  If Trump, then press, Democrats and even some Republicans will work against him on a host of issues.  Trump, as a neophyte in D.C., will have to find allies with political savvy to make him relevant and during his campaign he has offended many of the allies he will need in Congress.  If Clinton, who is knowledgeable in the ways of D.C. politics, she will face a united Republican opposition who will continue hearings in her potential crimes and fill the air with the specter of impeachment, all of which will work against her efforts to be relevant.

The problem with the Clintons is the daunting threat their actions pose when concealed or protected by politicians, agencies and press.  This enables the consolidation of power.  This disheartens voters.  This is acid on the trust of fundamental institutions.  This breeds populism that can heighten into the tyranny of the majority.

Policies left of Obama means more regulation, taxes, expanded unaffordable entitlements, growing debt and ballooning deficits if these policies are enacted.  Policies to the left of Obama mean the president will continue to attempt circumventing Congress to enact laws by decree.  And a liberal Supreme Court will be a threat to the Bill of Rights when liberty collides with liberal views of whatever they deem “equality”.

Liberals clasped their hands and told us the lesson from Watergate was that no man is above the law.  But the real lesson was that no Republican is above the law.  It is another story if you are a Democrat where the liberal battle cry is the nobility of the ends justifies the means.  A President Clinton is Watergate 2.0 that will stab at freedom and growth.

Arguably, neither Trump nor Clinton is an existential threat but they do represent what could be a zenith to the America followed by a gradual decline – the new normal of deteriorating growth and dependency on government.  The way to avoid this is for Americans, who a majority surveyed, believe both choices are bad, demand better.  The hope we have is for a one term President Clinton or President Trump and that the institutions that protect liberty remain strong enough to weather the next four years.

We must recapture our political processes.  We can do this if we are informed and vigilant.  The great 18th century political thinker J.J. Rousseau famously wrote about the people of England in Social Contract: 

The people of England think they are free. They are much mistaken. They are never so but during the election of members of Parliament. As soon as they are elected, they are slaves, they are nothing. And by the use they make of their liberty during the short moments they possess it, they well deserve to lose it.