The frontrunner, according to several recent polls, among them Washington Post-ABC, Suffolk University, and CNN/ORC surveys, in the 2016 presidential election is Hillary Clinton. While some say it is too early to even speak of the next election, I think it best to voice my opinions, if they are well informed and reasonable, early and often. Now, there are many reasons for a young Libertarian such as myself to not support her, such as her economic policies, her support for the war in Iraq, and her shady business dealings in the past. However, as so often happens for those of us with non-mainstream beliefs, we are forced to choose the lesser of evils. Madame Secretary Clinton, barring extreme and extraordinary events, will be the greatest of evils in the next election to me, though. One reason, in particular, holds me back from supporting her.

No, it isn’t, as the Atlantic Monthly suggests, the fact that she is a woman. Nor is it her personality, rumoured to be rather, well, unladylike (as if such concerns matter to the modern libertarian).

Instead, they stem from a comment, made under stress, before the United States Senate. As Ron Johnson of Wisconsin questioned her about the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Libya, as the continued media circus surrounding this even kept close watch, as Republicans made sure that any comment she made would be thoroughly examined and, inevitably, found lacking unless she committed an about face on her previous position, she let loose a small tirade.

Sen. Johnson pressed her for details as to why the State Department seemed to have been engaged in a cover up of sorts over these events in Benghazi. Why had they told the American public that this was the result of a protest over a YouTube video made about Mohammed? Why had they mislead citizens into believing that this was not, as it was, the work of terrorists? Why, Secretary Clinton, why?

She replied, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans?”
She continued, “What difference at this point does it make?”
Again, for those who might have missed that, “What difference at this point does it make?”
Indeed, it may seem profoundly unfair to base nearly my entire assessment of Madame Secretary Clinton on this exchange, this quote. However, it contains within it a sentiment so insidious, so threatening to the future of America, that I cannot in good conscience support her. As I indicated above, I understand that this was stressful for her, that sometimes, under the watchful gaze of so many, under the increased barrage of criticism, under the intense pressure, that people say things they wish they hadn’t. This, though, is a statement so antithetical to our nation’s ideals that it cannot be forgiven.
By saying this, she not only disrespects the families of the four who were killed in the attacks, but disrespects our entire democratic process. “What difference at this point does it make?” means that she cares not for the correct, the honest talking points, especially when her boss, President Barack Obama, is up for reëlection, for the difference between truth and lives is never more salient, more influential, and more important than in a democracy.
A democracy, really, relies in many ways upon trust. We have to trust those in power over us to give them authority over our lives, over our decisions and what we are able to do. We must have faith in our leaders to do the right thing, to make the right calls, to structure the right laws. Without that, government has no authority.
In the olden days, the kings were vested with authority because, descended from generations of noblemen and leaders, we had come under the assumption, and later the uncontested law, that these men had nothing less than God’s will behind them, His Holy Throne placing them in their thrones, their positions over us. The Divine Right of Kings meant that they could do whatever they wanted, and so often what they wanted to do was trample over the individual rights of their subjects.
After millennia, we had decided that we had enough of this, and our forefathers fought a war to grant us our own rights, our own liberties. It was not merely a war over taxes and land, it was a war over power and the ability to choose our own leaders, to craft our own laws, to determine our own structure of authority. Enlightened men created a new system, ratified by the consent of the people. And so we split from our brethren to create our own chapter in human history.
The government built relied upon people accepting that, though they may not agree with the policies or leaders in place at the time, they respected the rule of law in government and were able to place their trust, and thereby some of their power over themselves, into this social contract.
This is not to say that we have passed in this nation hitch free until now – there have always been those more than happy to undermine this system in a myriad of ways: John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts, Andrew Jackson and his conflict with the Supreme Court, Roger Taney and the Dred Scott decision, the dithering mess that was James Buchanan, the horrible mess of the Civil War, the incompetence of Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding, the cruel senseless power-grabbing of Joseph McCarthy, the shrewd, calculating scandal of Richard Nixon, have all, in their own ways, destroyed trust in this democratic system of ours. Yet, inevitably, we have come through, bearing the thought that trust should continue to be placed in government.
“What difference at this point does it make?” represents the belief that the government need not be held accountable for truth, that trust is a one way street and politicians have no obligation to us, their constituents (not, decidedly, their subjects). This belief undermines the social contract we have been working under for over two centuries now, and it cannot be tolerated.
Yes, smart people say bad things, but this slip proves, to me at least, that because she does not hold that trust in government requires our leaders to be held accountable and brought to the standard of honesty, I cannot trust Hillary Clinton.
Really, though, given her immense popularity, my immense obscurity, and the fact that the race is over two years away, “what difference at this point does it make?”