As the presidential election draws near, election issues are taking center stage. It is my opinion that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be the next president of the United States, if for no other reason than the fact that Donald Trump is completely unfit to be the leader of the most powerful country on earth. He seems incapable of forming complete thoughts and speaks confidently about topics he clearly hasn’t the slightest knowledge of.
Trump is a con man who has preyed on the despair and suspicion of millions of people, while simultaneously giving an amplified voice to our worst impulses. Certainly, he occasionally raises issues that are pertinent and must be addressed, and both Liberals and Conservatives must admit and correct their mistakes that led to his rise. Whatever the solutions to these issues might be, Trump does not have them.
But just because I hold a special kind of contempt for Trump does not mean Clinton should be given a free pass. Though I do believe that Clinton is one of the most slandered politicians of our era, there are serious problems with her policies that she must address. I have written before about Clinton’s horrendous foreign policy, and I continue to maintain that this is the worst aspect of her candidacy, far worse than emails or pneumonia.
Clinton believes that through military action, the United States can mold the world in its image and spread democracy, liberalism and respect for human rights. She is wrong, and the foreign policy experts who subscribe to this school of thought have been consistently proven incorrect. Though I believe human well-being is connected to values like the rule of law, democracy and liberalism, I am extremely skeptical of attempts to make other states conform to these values.
Often and unsurprisingly, so are other states onto which we try to impose these values — they see liberal ideologues as threatening to their hold on power. In response, they pursue evermore extreme measures to oppose the United States and retain control, leading to increasing instability. Likewise, the United States has proved itself almost ludicrously incapable of state-building. As was proven in Iraq, when the United States destroyed a moderately stable state, chaos reigns in the aftermath. This is true with Libya, too, another intervention Clinton championed and still defends in the face of its inarguable failure. These failed states become incubators for radicalism, terrorism and a source of global instability.
In a way, Clinton resembles President George W. Bush. Bush saw himself as a man at a turning point in history, destined to change the world. Bush went into Iraq not because Iraq had oil, and not because of weapons of mass destruction — weak evidence for them notwithstanding. He invaded Iraq because he believed it moral and just, because he believed Saddam Hussein to be a monster and the United States a bastion of goodness in a world needing healing. What resulted was a 21st century series of arrogant, unnecessary, provocative behavior on the international stage which does nothing to advance U.S. interests.
The United States needs a new foreign policy, one predicated on advancing U.S. interests, lessening foreign entanglements, while still committing itself to protect human rights when there is a clear and present threat, and the support of the international community. Most importantly, the best way the United States can be a force for good is leading by example. Making the United States a country worth emulating, a country others have deep respect for, will do far more for U.S. security interests and for the project of global democracy than any number of no-fly zones.
Aaron Bondar is a sophomore double-majoring in economics and political science.