Is There An Ethical Interpretation of Hillary’s Response To The Illegal Immigration Activist In Iowa?

Psst! The "thumbs up" really means, "I like your shoes"...

Psst! The “thumbs up” really means, “I like your shoes”…

In case you missed it while waiting for the next NFL player to beat up someone, Hillary Clinton, who is in Iowa theoretically testing the waters for a Presidential bid, answered this way when pressed by an activist on the rope line to give her views on President Obama’s delay of his promised executive order granting some privileges to illegals…

“I think we have to elect more Democrats.”

What did she intend to convey by this, and can such an intent possibly be defended? Some possibilities:

A. Translation: “I am running for President, and to be successful, I can’t possibly tell you my real views on this topic, since whatever position I take will lose votes. So I’m going to answer with a non-sequitur, as if I didn’t hear the question.”

Is this ethical? No. It’s an important issue, and if she is running for President, she has an obligation to communicate her views. If she has a position but doesn’t have the integrity and courage to communicate it, that’s cowardly and a breach or responsibility.

B. Translation: “We risk losing at the polls in November if voters know what the President really intends to do, and those who stand to benefit from his unilateral act circumventing the democratic process will vote Democratic anyway, even if the delay infuriates them. So it’s the smart move.”

Is this ethical? Surely not. It’s an admission that the President is trying to gull low-information voters, and that she approves of the strategy. It’s an expression of support for allowing the deportation of human beings for speculative political gain. It’s an endorsement of “the ends justify the means.”

C. Translation: “Well, however and whenever he does it, and whatever harm it does to the nation and the rule of law, and whatever long-term effects it has, all that matters to me is that it will result in more Democratic voters in future elections.”

Is this ethical? Absolutely not. This would be an expression of the worst and most Machiavellian reason imaginable to undermine U.S. sovereignty and permit law breakers to profit.

D. Translation: “Look, I think I can get elected by single-issue women who really don’t care about any of this stuff but just want someone with two X chromosomes in the White House, just like African-American voted for Obama despite the fact that he’s weak, feckless and clueless.  I don’t need to take positions on polarizing issues, and I don’t have any positions: I’ll say and do whatever it takes to stay in power, just like my husband. Remember when that NPR interviewer tried to get me to admit that I changed my position on gay marriage and I slapped her down? I said, ‘I have a strong record, I have a great commitment to this issue, and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress we’re making.’ In other words, nothing. That’s going to be my answer on everything, and given who the Republicans have to run against me, it will be enough.”

Is this ethical? Far from it. It breaches the duty of allowing an informed electorate to choose its leaders based on what they really stand for, playing instead to group identification politics, the lowest common denominator.

Is there another interpretation?


Source and Graphic: Business Insider

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts, and seek written permission when appropriate. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work or property was used in any way without proper attribution, credit or permission, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at

10 thoughts on “Is There An Ethical Interpretation of Hillary’s Response To The Illegal Immigration Activist In Iowa?

  1. Okay, I’ll bite.
    E. Translation. The President cannot act unilaterally on the issue as this requires legislative action. To achieve these goals legitimately, immigration reform must be passed by Congress. The Republicans hold a majority in the House. Therefore, we need to elect more Democrats to pass the legislation.

    Is this ethical? Yes. Advocating for a lawful legislative agenda is certainly the prerogative of a presidential hopeful. She cannot critique the President for choosing not to act unconstitutionally and unilaterally. Although she doesn’t outright say she supports delay for this reason, this wasn’t a press conference or interview.

    • He can’t LEGALLY act unilaterally. But since when has that stopped him? The fact that the Republicans refuse to play along with his amnesty concept and insist on following the existing law as written is hardly an excuse for Obama OR Hillary to trash the Constitution.

    • Pretty good!

      1) Of course, there isn’t one iota of a chance this was what she meant; 2)While Obama once said exactly what you just wrote, that’s not where his rhetoric has been pointing. 3) Thus this would be Hillary’s assertion that the promised executive order is like the health care promise—an intentional stalling tactic and lie. This would make Hillary ethical, but Obama unethical.

  2. When any politician answers direct questions with that kind of posturing and evading you know what they really think is something a lot of people wouldn’t like. When that is their default no thinking voter will take them seriously and you can only go by what they do or have done. That is much harder for them to weasel out of, although Hillary is past master at it.

  3. Why stop at this issue, however? When’s the last time you actually heard a politician answer a question? What would you give to hear a politician answer a simple yes-or-no question with a simple yes or no? And wyo, using the term “politician” and “really thinks” in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.