Time for Hillary Clinton to release her inner radical

None of her ideas seem that innovative - which probably means she won't make promises she can't keep. But it also means she fails to excite as much as she should

Mrs Clinton has 1,812 pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses (GETTY)

On the basis of the past 48 hours, it now looks certain that Hillary Rodham Clinton has become the first woman to capture the presidential nomination of one of America’s two major political parties. This moment is so “historic” that the former Secretary of State used that word twice in celebrating her victory over Bernie Sanders. She was right to do so. In the 227 years since George Washington was elected President of a newly independent America in 1789, 42 men, 41 of them white, have led the world’s most dynamic and enterprising nation. That it should have taken this long for a woman to become a nominee, let alone President, says much about the long battle still ahead for proponents of international gender equality.

And yet, the symbolism of her victory notwithstanding, Ms Clinton’s victory hasn’t aroused the kind excitement that her nomination might have done. Compared even to Barack Obama’s run for the Democratic ticket in 2008, for instance, she hasn’t pulled in crowds as big, stirred hearts as much, or created the kind of buzz and fever that attended his bid for the position of leader of the free world.

One reason for this is familiarity, which, if it hasn’t bred contempt, has at least bred lethargy. Ms Clinton has been in the public domain at least since her priapic husband was a successful and charismatic governor in the 1980s. Her emotional journey through his controversial two terms as President in the 1990s seems to belong to another era – one that many of those whose votes she now seeks will barely be able to remember. While, with the mark of most successful politicians, her husband led the country at an extremely fortunate time – after the fall of the Berlin Wall, before 9/11 and with constant economic growth and low inflation – she will lead a world that is much more complex and less favourable to American leadership and stability. For all these reasons, she has struggled to present herself as apart from the Washington elite and Establishment so derided by her next rival, Donald Trump.

Another reason for muted excitement at Ms Clinton’s ascension is the length of this primary campaign, which has been gruelling and relentless. Americans put their politicians through an awful lot before electing them, which for the most part is good, because it offers such huge scope for scrutiny. But given voters tend to be most engaged and excited shortly before they are asked to enter the ballot box, the length of the primaries does mean that by the time the general plebiscite takes place, many voters are torn between a yawn and utter disdain for the choices on offer.

Perhaps the main reason Ms Clinton hasn’t prompted the outbreak of solidarity and passion that she hoped to is the nature of the candidate herself. Not her gender, nor her capacity to create nostalgia for the 1990s; rather what she proposes to do for America. Political candidacy is a combination of character and plan: do you have the right experience, values and temperament (character), allied to the best ideas, policies, and strategy?

The curiosity of Ms Clinton is that she scores well on both fronts without exciting on either. Clearly, her track record as Secretary of State, exhaustively chronicled in her book Hard Choices, is impressive. She combines a phenomenal work rate with clear analysis and excellent diplomatic skills and knowledge. As for her plan to solve the crisis of America’s economy – which is how to make globalisation and rapid technological innovation work for the “everyday” Americans she wants to champion – her plans eschew radicalism for an uninspiring realism. She has talked about ending quarterly capitalism, breaking up oligopolies and mild reforms to education and the welfare state. None of these seem particularly original. That might mean she doesn’t make promises she can’t keep. But it does mean she fails to excite as much as she perhaps could.

To really take her candidacy to a new level, Ms Clinton needs to revive the spirit that brought her into politics. She needs to reawaken her inner radical.