Clinton supporters, your candidate just bragged about the approval of Henry Kissinger, can we talk about this?

Last night towards the end of the Democratic debate, Clinton trotted out the approval of Henry Kissinger to bolster her foreign policy credentials. I almost fell off my chair. Kissinger was - and probably still is - a peddler of the most murderous, human-rights-violating foreign policy doctrine the world has ever seen. The fact that he is being accepted, by progressives no less, as some kind of influential elder statesman is outrageous. He should be tried for crimes against humanity, not bragged about as an endorsement. Furthermore, the embrace of Kissinger’s approach to foreign policy by Clinton speaks volumes about her progressive moral compass in general.

A little primer on what Kissinger actually did is in order, since apparently progressives have forgotten. Kissinger was the United States National Security Advisor and Secretary of State between the years of 1969 and 1977, under Nixon and Ford. You might recall this was a divisive time in American history with Republicans embarking on foreign policy adventures around the world to slaughter communists with brown skin, using poor and brown Americans as cannon fodder, and American youth basically freaking out over it. You can thank Henry Kissinger.  

Kissinger was essentially a right winger who narrowly defined American interests as capitalist corporate interests, and used the full force of the American military to pursue those interests, international law and human rights be damned. He supported violent dictators, overthrew democratically elected leaders too far left for his taste, probably had something to do with a few assassinations, and is definitely culpable for millions of innocent civilian deaths. Here is a list of nations where his policy decisions led directly to massive genocide: Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, East Timor and Chile. And that is not an exhaustive list. The catchy name for this in foreign policy circles is “Realpolitik” because “crimes against humanity” would be too honest.

My heart literally sank when I heard Clinton mention his name. I did not think this was an issue of debate within the Democratic Party. I thought Democrats supported human rights and the rule of law. What have we come to?

What say you, Clinton supporters? You admire her for her hard-nosed foreign policy decisions? She has to be a hawk because she’s a woman? Okay, you asked for it. This embrace of Realpolitik foreign policy is itself part of a larger Democratic Realpolitik approach to politics in general. The essence of Realpolitik is the abandonment of principles in pursuit of raw self-interest. Democrats in general, and Clinton in particular, have a habit of supporting progressive principles when it’s beneficial and abandoning them when it’s not. Democrats, including Clinton, have a habit of ceding moral and linguistic ground to Republicans and basically failing to fight fiercely for progressive principles and those they protect, out of fear of electoral defeat. Hence “socialism” - the basis of progressive morality - became a dirty word. Until Sanders brought it back.

Sanders’ appeal lies in his principled approach to politics. He fights for progressive values and those they protect no matter what. He’s said the same thing for 50 years, in times of electoral victory and defeat, when it made him deeply unpopular, and now, when it’s finally working out in his favor. And he's a true progressive on foreign policy, a supporter of human rights and international law, not a Kissinger fan. I support Sanders over Clinton because, among other things, she just legitimized the biggest war criminal and violator of progressive principles of the 20th century in the interest of her own electoral success. Oh, and she also supports the death penalty, putting her in good company with the Saudi royal family. Not cool.