Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Hillary Clinton warns that inequality can corrupt societies

Hillary Clinton, May 14, 2014.
Hillary Clinton, May 14, 2014.
Hillary Clinton, May 14, 2014.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Andrew Prokop
Andrew Prokop is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He’s worked at Vox since the site’s launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker’s Washington, DC, bureau.

There's an interesting dilemma that Hillary Clinton faces as she positions herself for a potential presidential run. The Democratic Party and its base are overwhelmingly focused on domestic issues — most of all, the economy and income inequality . Yet the main thing Clinton has done since 2008 is serve as Obama's Secretary of State, a foreign policy job. Even her tenure there lacks a marquee, eye-catching achievement — "Hillary Clinton never did find a way to turn Foggy Bottom into her ticket to history," Susan Glasser wrote in Politico Magazine. If US voters simply don't care very much about foreign policy right now, and Clinton has no obvious accomplishment that makes them care, how does she turn her State Department experience into a case for her candidacy?

During a Washington DC speech on Friday, Clinton provided a look at how she might approach this challenge. "Economists have documented how the share of income and wealth going to the very top — not just the top 1%, but the top 0.1% or the 0.01% of the population, has risen sharply over the last generation," she told the New America Foundation. "Some are calling it a throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons." But after this tough talk, she made an interesting rhetorical turn toward her Secretary of State experience. The video of her speech is here, these comments start around 14:40:

“As Secretary of State, I saw the way extreme inequality has corrupted other societies, hobbled growth, and left entire generations alienated and unmoored. From Guatemala, to Greece, to Pakistan, I urged elites to pay their fair share — to provide services that would be the base on which more of their fellow countrymen and women could climb out of poverty. I pressed governments to invest in their people an inclusive positive vision of the future. Now, in the Middle East and North Africa, we saw the explosive results when opportunity and potential are denied for too long.”

Here, Clinton is positioning herself as a kind of global crusader against income inequality, urging corrupt and wealthy elites to do something about this challenge. And by bringing up the Arab Spring, she alludes to the "explosive results" that could occur if the US doesn't do something to address it. "Many Americans feel frustrated, even angry," she said. Though Clinton never explicitly argues that social upheaval akin to the Arab Spring could happen here, bringing it up in this context clearly underscores the need for urgent action. So rather than arguing that her Secretary tenure makes her qualified to lead on foreign affairs, she's saying it beefs up her qualifications on domestic policy.

It's an interesting reaction to the growing possibility that, if there is a competitive Democratic primary in 2016, inequality issues will be the main battleground. The New Republic's Noam Scheiber wrote that an Elizabeth Warren run could be "Hillary's nightmare." And last week, Vice President Biden — another potential candidate — gave what was described to CNN as "a stem-winding, almost revival-type speech" about inequality issues.

See More:

More in archives

archives
Ethics and Guidelines at Vox.comEthics and Guidelines at Vox.com
archives
By Vox Staff
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health careThe Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health care
Supreme Court

Given the Court’s Republican supermajority, this case is unlikely to end well for trans people.

By Ian Millhiser
archives
On the MoneyOn the Money
archives

Learn about saving, spending, investing, and more in a monthly personal finance advice column written by Nicole Dieker.

By Vox Staff
archives
Total solar eclipse passes over USTotal solar eclipse passes over US
archives
By Vox Staff
archives
The 2024 Iowa caucusesThe 2024 Iowa caucuses
archives

The latest news, analysis, and explainers coming out of the GOP Iowa caucuses.

By Vox Staff
archives
The Big SqueezeThe Big Squeeze
archives

The economy’s stacked against us.

By Vox Staff