Political pundits from the right, center and left are complaining that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a “sense of purpose or energy or mission.” Some, like David Brooks, worry that there’s an “unconscious boredom” with her candidacy. (This coming from the same David Brooks that mocked Obama as “The Chosen One” for being, I guess, too inspirational in his 2008 campaign. You’re a tough crowd, Dave.)
What the media fails to realize is that Hillary Clinton is not a “Yes We Can” sort of leader. She’s more of a “Let’s See How Things Progress & Then Respond Appropriately” type of candidate. Her support (and then opposition) of the Iraq War illustrates this strategy, as does her flip flop on gay marriage. She is a shrewd political creature who has a penchant for knowing when the time is ripe to change (or “evolve”) her views on certain issues.
Moreover, she also knows when to not stick her neck out on an issue: see the Keystone pipeline & TPP. This calculating behavior is what makes her so infuriating to her enemies and allies alike. She is the political embodiment of the prudent populist when it comes to divisive issues.
Enter marijuana legalization.
Back in 2007, Clinton was firmly against the decriminalization of the devil’s lettuce. Who can blame her? In that distant age, only about 36 percent of Americans favored legalization. But in a similar fashion to same-sex marriage, public opinion on this subject has changed rapidly. Now, 53 percent of Americans are fine with legalizing marijuana – which prompts the question to any serious presidential candidate: Would you support legalizing marijuana nationally?
This is what Clinton had to say in 2014:
On recreational [use], you know, states are the laboratories of democracy. We have at least two states that are experimenting with that right now. I want to wait and see what the evidence is.
In other words, “Let’s See How Things Progress & Then Respond Appropriately.”
The current state of marijuana in the USA.
However, a lot has changed since 2014. There could be more laboratories of democracy to come. While preparations are still under way, it looks like there will be legalization initiatives on the ballot in (at least) Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Nevada. If we assume for a second that all of these initiatives are successful in 2016, that would mean 1/5 of the US would have legal weed. And if we further assume that Hillary Clinton walks into the White House in 2017, she will be residing over a nation which has a deeply complicated relationship with marijuana.
If both of these hypotheticals turn out to be true, we most likely know how Hillary is going to face this issue. Her prudent populism isn’t that hard to decipher. As Paul Waldman identified, “with legalization becoming more popular, particularly in her party, don’t be surprised if Clinton begins a slow evolution in a more liberal direction on this issue, as she has on many others.”
In other words, it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when President Hillary Clinton would get behind marijuana legalization. An evolution on pot would tick so many boxes for her: it would make her appear forward-looking, it would alleviate the mass incarceration problem which predominately effects African-Americans, it would bring in the youth vote, and it would generate more revenue for local and federal governments which are in desperate need of some cash flow.
Is it that hard to imagine President Clinton standing before a teleprompter in the near future and announcing to the American people that “it’s time to turn this page in American history?”
I don’t think 2016 will be that final chapter. The marijuana legalization movement is too nascent and frankly, she understands that she does not need to put her neck out on this issue – yet. But could this be a defining political issue in 2020? The American people certainly do: 75 percent of Americans think that legal marijuana is an inevitability in this country. Marijuana’s time is nigh.
While she may not say so now, Hillary knows this as well. She is merely waiting to respond appropriately.
Remember when Jeb! said that Republicans would have to “lose the primary to win the general” and that American voters are looking for an “uplifting, much more positive message?” Well, that Jeb! has well and truly gone AWOL; over the past two months, he has instead been checking off a list of racial minorities to belittle. I guess he’s found out that to win the primary in 2016, Republican voters are actually looking for racism, hatred, and a dash of white privilege. Go figure.
