Clintonian ethics

Hillary Clinton is an enigma. Once considered among the most powerful individuals inside of Washington, she was bested by a freshman senator for the Presidency, despite carrying the name and support of one of the most prominent politicians of the past half century. In the time between her campaign’s surprising failure and today, she has busied herself, accumulating an extensive list of accolades, but with few discernible accomplishments. In many respects, the previous Secretary of State is similar to the 2015 EcoBoost Mustang, flashy on the outside, but hollow where it matters.

That’s not to say that the former first lady wouldn’t present a formidable challenge in the next general election, as she most certainly would, but now, style may not be sufficient enough to overcome substance, or the lack thereof.  While there’s little doubt that had she vanquished Senator Obama for the DNC’s 2008 nomination, she would have ascended to the presidency and retained the position in 2012, this election cycle may prove to be quite different.

{mosads}Of no small concern to the venerable stateswoman, is the litany of scandals in which she has suddenly found herself embroiled.  Although the Clintons are no strangers to such issues, having masterfully navigated everything from the Whitewater controversy to suspicions of money laundering with relation to cattle futures, the timing of these current allegations couldn’t have come at a more inopportune moment. Within but a few weeks, the first exploratory committees will be announced, and the race will officially be underway.  

The first of these quandaries (chronologically speaking) to possibly impede Mrs. Clinton’s entry, involves donations to the non-profit Clinton Foundation, which were received from various sources during Hillary’s term as the head of the US State Department.  According to a recent report by the Washington Post, it was revealed that the Clinton Foundation had continued to accept foreign contributions during Hillary’s tenure at the State Department, despite the existence of an ethics agreement that barred such activity.

Far more damning however, are the concerns related to Mrs. Clinton’s sole usage of a private e-mail account while fulfilling her role as the Secretary of State.  Although the illegality of this move has yet to be determined, the implications are no less disconcerting.  For what reason could one logically require such circumvention to procedural norms? What security oversight could, or did transpire as a result of this haphazard act? And what was worth keeping from public record? According to Mrs. Clinton, she simply couldn’t manage two accounts and as such, the mistake amounted to a simple oversight.

Such a preposterous suggestion is insulting, and to accept this narrative of naiveté, is to willfully dismiss Mrs. Clinton’s extensive history in politics, in addition to her future aims. Without question, Mrs. Clinton’s decision to utilize her own private e-mail and server, as opposed to that which was provided to her and secured by the government, was a deliberate act and not one that was made for the sake of simple convenience. Unlike the account she could have used, her personal e-mail fell outside the purview of the Freedom of Information Act, and while she has provided over 55,000 messages to the State Department, the deletion of 32,000 more, in conjunction with her reluctance to turn over her server, speaks volumes more than the pages she surrendered. 

Yet, even if one is to believe that the aforementioned behavior demonstrates no egregious misconduct, Benghazi will continue to hang over Mrs. Clinton’s head like the Sword of Damocles. Though I fully realize that this assertion will garner the ire of those individuals who’ve attached themselves to Mrs. Clinton as if they were the Chang to her Eng Bunker, it is nevertheless important to consider, even if contemplated purely within the context of basic leadership potentiality. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton not only refrained from demanding greater resource allocation for Ambassador Stevens and his team, but she further failed to adequately ask and answer the appropriate questions following the immediate aftermath of his demise; subsequently selling a false narrative that could have been readily debunked, had she even thought to ask Gregory Hicks, the Deputy Chief of the US Mission in Libya.

As the presidential election cycle seemingly arrives ever earlier, like a box-store’s Christmas decorations being assembled in the aisle adjacent to the summer’s first pool supplies, timing is certainly vital. For an aspirant such as Mrs. Clinton, these revelations will either represent a blessing or a curse. On the one hand, if fielded well, the potential political impact associated with these discoveries, may well be allayed prior to entering into the more crucial phases of the nomination process. On the other hand, conservative sharks aren’t alone in sensing blood in the water. From Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), to yes, even the affable Joe Biden, these discoveries may be akin to finding the exhaust port on an otherwise invulnerable death star.

With no shortage of proton torpedoes being fired from both GOP and DNC candidates alike, these charges may be insurmountable and if proven to be accurate, rightfully so. While Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers may currently reflect the powerful and competent façade she projects, such scandals may come to represent a fracture to the leg on an otherwise unbeatable racehorse.  To those that finance and advance these ventures, the window required for an effective recovery, may not be worth the requisite period of rehabilitation.

In any case, these issues represent legitimate complications for the dynastic hopeful. Should Mrs. Clinton come to symbolize the archetypal embodiment of the old guard, as she risks doing, her hopes of reaching 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, may be dashed before the first attack ad is ever aired. Regardless, the fundamental question will likely become, whether Americans will want to side with the unethical officials they know, or the ones they haven’t yet been spurned by.

But then again, as we have learned time and again, what difference does it make?​

Morris is a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma.