I haven't seen anyone comment on the recent Crowley profile (sub. req., but everyone has to learn about bugmenot some day) of Hillary Clinton in TNR. For a long time I have viewed Clinton with mild, diffuse distaste; this is in addition to the stronger feelings engendered by her Iraq war support and her refusal to recognize that it was a mistake. However, in trying to explain her politically-counterintuitive refusal to admit a mistake on Iraq, Crowley manages to highlight the reason of my discontent. It comes down to three things: militarism, authoritarianism, and paranoia.

First, the militarism. At a speech to the CFR in October 2000, Clinton claimed that

There is a refrain... that we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time. To those who believe we should become involved only if it is easy to do, I think we have to say that America has never and should not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one.

If nothing else, the last four years should have taught us to be wary of a leader who sets her sights on some "right thing" and then sends the military out to make it so, even if "we" (i.e. "they") find it hard. This crusading attitude is a recipe for stupid wars, and at this point our reputation, budget, and military can't take too much more damage. Oh, and then there's that phrase "splendid little wars." Should we maybe warm up on Qatar on the way into Iran?

Second, authoritarianism:

Clinton was arguing that Congress should have an innate deference to presidential authority in matters of diplomacy and war. As she explained to ABC's George Stephanopoulos in December 2003, "I'm a strong believer in executive authority. I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority."

Again, the last four years have taught us that we need a less Congress. The authority to make war (or "police action", "ballistic whoopee", etc.), which was once divided between the executive and legislative, seems to have come to rest almost entirely with the President. Now is not the time to move further in this direction.

Finally, the reflexive paranoia. As a young law professor, Clinton tried to volunteer for the marines during Vietnam, and was rejected for not meeting their physical standards (she had poor vision, for example). In his pathetic two-question interview slot with Clinton, Crowley asked her about her service. A sane politician would reply that she wanted to serve her country, an admirable and unremarkable explanation, and put the issue to rest. Instead, she responded as follows:

At this her eyes narrowed and she threw me a glare of mistrust. "I have very deep and quite broad relationships with people in the military," she said. As for the meaning of the recruiting visit, "I can't tell you," she said with a dismissive wave. "You go look at that."

Whoa.

Authoritarianism and paranoia can be explained by her experience in the Clinton administration and as one of the Ritalin Right's few constant public enemies. But to explain is not to accept, and I see no reason to accept someone this dangerous as our nominee.