Hillary Clinton announced that she would campaign on a platform that would emphasize the need for collective economics and move away from individual performance and success. It could be called an extension of “It Takes A Village,” and it might have been — had the newspapers bothered to cover it:
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”
That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.
“There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed,” she said. “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”
A lot of nations have tried “all in it together” economic policies over the last century. Some used “government policies” to force all economic activity under government management, and places like the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites all collapsed. Others, such as France, have belatedly discovered that collectivism results in economic stagnation and an entitlement mentality that deflates the will to innovate and invest.
This kind of rhetoric isn’t new for Hillary. She has promoted collectivist economics for two decades now. Her effort to nationalize health care reflected the same kind of thinking, and this statement shows that she hasn’t learned much from that debacle. Almost three years ago, she promised that she would “take things away from [Americans] for the common good,” back when the economy had just started its latest expansion. That’s collectivism, and it’s not limited to Hillary among Democratic candidates.
However, what I find most interesting about this statement is the complete lack of coverage it received in today’s newspapers. She made the statement in the early afternoon, and it was meant to be part of a major series of speeches on economic policy. Yet, none of the major newspapers covered it in their political or national sections today. It’s missing from the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe. The NY Times only carried the part of her message that mentioned “shared prosperity”, and then only on its blog, The Caucus.
Why didn’t they mention the main thrust of her economic vision? Could it be that the editors of these publications have a better ear for politics than Hillary — and acted to protect her from criticism?