Why Should Partisan Politics Get in the Way of Warmongering? by Lucy Steigerwald

The neoconservatives should just go all in for Hillary Clinton and be done with it. From Lucy Steigerwald at antiwar.com:

Ever since the more mainstream Republican right began to turn on Donald Trump, I’ve wondered why they don’t simply bite the bullet and vote for Hillary Clinton instead. Desperate for anyone who isn’t Trump, the GOP has tried to get Weekly Standard editor William Kristol to suggest a candidate – which went as well as you might expect – and dreamt of someone, anyone, riding in on a red horse to save the party, and the day. Though former CIA agent Evan McMullin appears to be making what could be construed as a minor splash, he’s not going to be the candidate anyone was looking for.

What’s wrong with Hillary Clinton? No, hang on. Don’t answer that. However, if you’re a moderate authoritarian centrist, you can work with her. She is you. She’s less protectionist on markets than Trump. She is a confirmed hawk, while he rhetorically dances from isolationist to sure, let’s send 30,000 troops to fight ISIS. It’s an insult in leftist circles to call Clinton, or anyone, a corporatist, but Republicans are no stranger to cronyism in their candidates. If it weren’t for that unfortunate Clinton last name, and maybe her stances on guns and abortion, Hillary Clinton could be a solidly Nixonian choice for the more “reasonable” Republican.

She’s been searching for the endorsements to match. Turns out former Secretary of State/ war criminal Henry Kissinger may or may not be looking to officially back anyone this year. But Clinton has already boasted that he was impressed by her work in the State Department. Time reports that Kissinger was at least considering signing off on her for president. Furthermore, there has been a lot of talk of the campaign reaching out to Republicans who are horrified by Trump, for whatever reason.

One of the most blatantly hawkish voices to say “Clinton 2016!” is Robert Kagan. Kagan is the co-founder of the late Project for an American Century, otherwise known as the braintrust of the nastiest pro-war voices of the last two decades. It was obvious to Kagan that Clinton was the right choice for president (at least when she was standing next to Trump).

Kagan is right. Trump is principle-less, untrustworthy on war, and blatantly terrible on immigration and trade. But Clinton has already done awful things, and has pushed for war again and again. If you believe that the US should treat the rest of the world like a slab of clay in art class, then Hillary Clinton is the choice. Some Republicans, of note and otherwise, are falling into line behind her. A July Washington Post piece suggested that they would be right to do so, even if it was “extreme.” This is because Trump is terrible, Libertarians aren’t worth it, and Clinton has a record for working with the other side while in the Senate. Hell, she worked with the late Republican Sen. Robert Bennett in 2005 on an anti-flag burning law that thankfully failed. She’s dependable!

Clinton loves America the way hawks do — thoughtlessly, dangerously, and in an authoritarian-friendly manner. It’s just a little surprising that more of the folks on the right aren’t jumping on her bandwagon. And where are the official right-wing media endorsements? Where is National Review’s In Praise of Hillary issue? Why doesn’t the Washington Free Beacon realize that Clinton is crazy for warmongering, just like they are?

To continue reading: Why Should Partisan Politics Get in the Way of Warmongering?