Simon Burns MP: Why Conservatives should welcome President Hillary Rodham Clinton

Simon Burns, Conservative MP for Chelmsford, says that Clinton is a "new Tory" and Conservatives should feel able to support her in the interests of the special relationship.

The importance of the Special Relationship with America has always rightly been the cornerstone of British foreign policy – with the short exception of the Heath premiership - which explains why Tony Blair found it so easy in January 2001 to move so swiftly from supporting Bill Clinton to being such best friends with the most rightwing Republican president since Herbert Hoover.

This fact presents a serious challenge to too many Conservatives in Britain, who ostrich-like, are not prepared to confront. The problem is their inexplicable attachment to a party that has produced the viciousness of Tom Delay, the hypocrisy of Mark Foley and David Vitter and the economic policies of George W Bush which have turned the budget surplus of Bill Clinton into a massive deficit due to tax cuts for the rich and greatly increased public spending. To add insult to injury, they find the nauseating mantra of the neo-cons attractive.

On the 20th January 2009 this will all change because due to the ineptitude of George W Bush in both his management of the American economy and the war in Iraq, the smart money is on a Democrat entering the White House. Barring an implosion of massive proportions that Democrat will be Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

This scenario provides a golden opportunity for the Conservative party to mend fences and ensure that under a Cameron Conservative Government the special relationship could continue to flourish with a Democrat administration in Washington. As Freddie Sayers has recently written in the Spectator, all David Cameron has to do is ‘to go to Washington, meet Hillary Clinton and other leading Democrats as well as George Bush, and issue a short statement: Due to the importance of maintaining the special relationship whichever parties are in power, the Conservative Party will not pick sides or have partisan arrangements with any particular political party in the US.’

This would hopefully help to undo the damage of the alleged interference by the Conservative Government in Bill Clinton’s election campaign in 1992 and show that the Conservative Party under David Cameron is more mainstream and prepared to work with a Democratic Administration – which can only be good for our national interest.

As they say in the US, it’s a slam dunk.

This sensible approach to protecting the special relationship will raise hackles with some traditional Conservatives, especially the concept of smoozying up to Hillary Clinton. Sadly the reaction will be based on ignorance. It will be influenced by the pernicious drip drip drip effect of what has been a right wing conspiracy against both Clintons and a lack of understanding of what makes Hillary tick.

As the Conservative Party moves to its traditional centre-right position in the political spectrum, it will find that Hillary is in many ways a New Tory. She, like the Tories, believes in free health care for all. She believes in equal pay, for a coherent policy on childcare, improving state education and even her criticism of the Iraq policy is not far from what many Conservatives believe.

To ignore Hillary Clinton in the hope that she will go away and cling to a dubious prejudice of supporting a discredited Republican Party which is on the electoral skids would be the height of folly for the Conservative Party.

The sooner we recognise the fact that Hillary is ‘In it to win it’ the better because the odds are she will win it and it is crucial for our national interest that that we are able to work positively with her.

Comments

[Simon Newman]

I doubt this will be a popular message on BritainandAmerica.com! I think if course we can, and should, work well with whoever is elected US President in 2008. However to claim that Hillary Clinton is a 'centre-right conservative', even by British standards, is really pushing it. Arguably she does have some things in common with continental Christian Democrats like Angela Merkel, but essentially she is a social democrat, or democratic socialist. She is certainly no closer to British conservatism than is Giuliani, the neocon-backed Republican front-runner. But whether the US President is Giuliani, Clinton, Romney, Obama or anyone else, our close links should be able to continue just fine, because they are based on mutual interest and mutual Anglo-Celtic culture.

[MH]

Simon Burns is spot on. Clinton is a deeply unprincipled, vapid politician, but with undoubted electoral skills. She has materially changed her views (and continues to do so) based upon her audience and the fact that she is now running for the Oval Office. As such, she is a perfect parallel to thet unprincipled, vapid politician, David Cameron.

The one fundamental difference is that unlike Dave, she stands a hope in Hell of being elected.

[Donal Blaney]

This has got to be a spoof piece, right?

[SpudHead]

I ruddy well hope this a spoof, Donal.

As an Essex Man, I feel sick reading this rubbish from an Essex MP. We're patriotic, decent, invidivually-minded, small government types...which is not what Hillary is and, apparently, what Simon Burns isnt either.

Either Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney can fight Islamo-fasicsm and make America, and even the West, united and strong again - NOT some flimsy, PC Democrat.

[CDM]

This article might have been more credible if the author hadn't described Herbert Hoover as "rightwing" - a man who more than doubled the top rate of income tax and the national debt. Then again, it's not like George the Second's economic policy has been conservative. When did the Republican party stop believing in balanced budgets?

[Tim Montgomerie]

This article is not a spoof!

This ConservativeHome.com survey from June found that more than twice as many UK Tories preferred a Republican to a Denmocrat presidential candidate.

[malcolm]

No, no, no! Britain has to work with whoever the American people elect because it is in our interests to do so but I sure as hell hope it's not Hillary Clinton. As a poster above notes she is entirely unprincipled and like her husband is guided by political expediency only.I still have not forgiven her for the help she and her husband gave to Gerry Adams for the sole reason of gaining Irish republican votes. Anyone who can do that clearly has no regard at all for the British people.
I'm very sorry that Simon Burns chose to pen this article.

[Thomas Wales]

What about Ron Paul? Surely we should be supporting him?

[changetowin]

Great article - so true...

[Andrew Lilico]

I guess we should welcome whoever wins the US Presidential race - once we know who it is. It would seem a bit odd for the Party corporately to be supporting particular candidates in advance, though! But each of us is surely entitled to offer personal support to whichever candidate he/she likes. So if Simon Burns favours Hilary - why not? She's a perfectly respectable candidate in many ways, as far as I can see. I won't be supporting her myself, though. In the American context it will be crucial to get probably two more terms of anti-abortion Presidents, so as to put Roe vs Wade to bed.

[Richard]

I am no Conservative MP of course, but having watched the Giuliani 'Margaret Thatcher' speech on American Bridge yesterday, I, and I hope many other Conservatives, will back Mr Giuliani for the Presidency. A popular, politically proven confessed Thatcherite who the aforementioned speech proves can put the Neoconservative message across more appealingly than the Bush administration could.

But then: "To add insult to injury, they find the nauseating mantra of the neo-cons attractive."

Nauseating? I think Mr Burns should explain his opinion here a bit more. I've just read Douglas Murray's book on Neoconservatism and was quite taken...

[Sarkis Zeronian]

I agree with much of what Simon Newman has to say in his first post.

Of course we can, and should follow Tony Blair's example of transition from Clinton to Bush and work with the new President in 2008, I also agree with his characterisation of Clinton H.'s social democratic politics.

Where I differ is on his view that Giuliani is far removed from the British Conservative Party. What some people tend to forget is that America is a different country with unique traditions and a history of its own, we cannot expect American politicians to match our own prejudices. That said, Giuliani comes closer than a great deal of candidates, past and present, to being a Republican a British Conservative should happily see elected.

[aristeides]

This is an extremely disappointing article.

"...the pernicious drip drip drip effect of what has been a right wing conspiracy against both Clintons..." Risible.

Health care might be "free" to the economically unproductive like Simon Burns and Hillary Clinton but he can rest assured that some of us are paying for it.

In fact, it is not just disappointing but quite disgraceful. The lack of talent on the Conservative benches is depressing enough without having to worry about whose side they are on.

[David]

The Democrats and Republicans, while nominally representing the right and left in the US, are pretty much both on the right of the UK political spectrum. The idea that the Tories should identify themselves with the Republicans only is a bit artificial; Macmillan got on famously with JFK for example.

[Steevo]

Well yes this could easily be a spoof even tho Tim's officially clarified. Its hard to believe its written by a self-proclaimed Conservative. I still don't know enough about the political seen in the UK and appreciate Richard's post that it would be interesting to see Burn's explain himself. I have to say tho hopefully for the UK this man is in a tiny, tiny minority who don't officially side with your Left.

Reagan was more conservative than Bush. His problems were the Democrat-controlled House and Senate. "Viciousness of Tom Delay"? Yeah Burn's is a sweetheart. Bush's tax cuts have largely been considered a boon to our economy. I'm not up on our deficit and don't care to look it up at reliable sources but last I read it was either slowing or on the decline and at a healthy rate. Also, the attack on 9/11 and Katrina cost our economy 100s of billions - catastrophes far greater than the Clinton Administration had to deal with. And anything they did to help our budget was in my opinion because we had Republican control in the House and Senate trying to limit their spending and policy limiting business such as too much taxes.

Hillary is a true leftist and cannot be realistically compared to Rudy. He is more of a Federalist as opposed to Hillary being a Socialist.

Reading most of the Brits on this puts a smile on my face. Maybe there's hope yet ;-)

MH, good take :-)

[Iain Lindley]

This is a good article. We should not be picking sides and a future Conservative government will have to work with whoever is in the White House.

What I really don't understand, however, is the strange attachment of the right of the Party to the Republicans.

Personally I find it baffling that people think "cutting taxes" rather than "low taxes" is an ideological position. It's all relative - you can't keep cutting taxes when you get to zero, especially if you want to keep some over for gay-bashing, obscene military spending and moralising about what women should do with their bodies.

Yes, Democrats are in favour of higher taxes than the Republicans, but where is the starting base? Even if the most leftist Democrats got their way, they would still leave Thatcher looking like a tax-and-spend socialist.

Both US parties have their lunatic fringe, but if you had to boil them down into a point on the British political spectrum, the Democrats would be centre-right and more socially liberal, and the Republicans would be a right-wing socially conservative party. I know which of those I'd choose.

[Andrew Lilico]

So, Iain Lindley@10:24, I think we can safely say that you would not count as a *mainstream* Republican voter...
;-)

[Andrew Lilico]

BTW, Simon Burns' comment about the "nauseating mantra of the neo-cons" is somewhat, shall we say, *brave*, given that Osborne and Cameron are fully-signed-up neo-con hawks, and their close ally Gove would certainly fall into what I believe Washington circles refer to as the "velociraptor" category...

[Jonathan Powell]

The idea that the modern Democratic Party is in anyway "conservative" is a myth. They are just as left-wing as Labour, and Hillary is only moderate in the way that Gordon Brown is. By Mr Burns' logic, British Conservatives should support Brown! In fact, if this is what he really believes I wouldn't be surprised if we see another defection to the Labour party--does Quentin Davies share Mr Burn's views, I wonder?

Of course, if Hillary were elected we should maintain close ties with the US and respect the office of President whether we agree with the individual's policies or not, but the same would apply to Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan. Thankfully, it's academic because Hillary is unlikely to be the next President--I think Obama is the Dems best hope. If they nominate Hillary the Republicans are back in business, especially if Rudy is their candidate.

[bing crosby's stunt double]

It's pieces like this that encourage dimwit A Listers to go over and campaign for Democrat candidates.

[Tony Makara]

I can't say that I would vote for Hillary Clinton. Nontheless I do think she is a very skilled politican. I'm not sure however whether Hillary would be able to override her progressive instincts. The sign of a great politician is that they are not boxed in by party orthodoxy and will always do the right thing in the national interest. Hillary, in my opinion, is too driven by progressive goals and a belief in conspiracy, to ever be balanced enough to appeal to Conservatives.

[Moral minority]

Like Donald Blaney, I thought it was a spoof and was waiting for the punchline that never came. This article is evidence of how far the Tory party has drifted to the Left. In fact, this Republican administration has overseen a massive expansion in non-defence government spending, far in excess of Bill Clinton. The reason why some traditional conservatives would vote for "Billary" is that she would cut back on Bush-Cheney's profligacy.

Like Thomas Wales, I support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. He is not a war-monger like Guiliani nor a Bush-Cheney patsy like Fred Thompson. He is the only genuine Conservative in the Republican field. The Liberal Republican establishment hates Paul's anti-war, limited governmentlow tax policies, the basis for his massive online support.

Conservative Home's editor, as an online campaigning enthusiast, should explain why he has given no coverage to Paul's candidacy or his explosive television debates with the other candidates. I fear that he has received instructions from his neo-conservatives pals, e.g. David Frum, in National Review.

[John Coles]

Moral Minority's comment:
""This article is evidence of how far the Tory party has drifted to the Left.""
says it all.
This is why so many Conservatives will have great difficulty in ever voting for Mr Cameron's bunch of eco-socialists.

[TaxCutter]

If we had to put up with a Democrat President, it strikes me that Bill Richardson would be a better bet than Hilary.

However, how any Tory MP could not want any of Guiliani, Thompson, or Romney to triumph over any Democrat makes me wonder just whose side is this guy on? Its over a year to the US Presidential election, its false and pessimistic assumption that the Democratic candidate must win.

[TaxCutter]

If we had to put up with a Democrat President, it strikes me that Bill Richardson would be a better bet than Hilary.

However, how any Tory MP could not want any of Guiliani, Thompson, or Romney to triumph over any Democrat makes me wonder just whose side is this guy on? Its over a year to the US Presidential election, its false and pessimistic assumption that the Democratic candidate must win.