10-10-2016, 09:02 PM
I think it's simply the reality of politics; it's not exclusive to Hillary. Politics are ugly, there's a gross lack of transparency, and people in power are beholden to moneyed interests. I think she's right that it's effective if you want to get things done in Washington, but that's always entirely dependent on who's being Machiavellian if we're to completely disregard transparency. Do the ends justify the means in establishing a more libertarian society? In other words, would we be decrying the public/private position if it was necessary to end the War on Drugs, for example?
The problem here is that we don't trust a career politician like Hillary Clinton to get sausage made. We also wouldn't trust Donald Trump to do this, either. In fact, Trump's outlandish claims and constant fibbing while arguing that he's great at negotiating (down) is a perfect example of what Hillary's talking about. That is an example of someone with a public position and a private position.
I think there should always be as much transparency as possible, but our system is inherently broken and rotten to the core, so I don't ever hold my breath hoping for real, drastic change — I'd end up suffocating if I did. All I can really do is educate, take pleasure in small victories, and hope that government is at least slowly chipped away at. People generally prefer gradualism over revolution.