Is Clintonism pragmatism?

Back in 1992, when a then-young Bill Clinton burst onto the national scene, he did so as a new kind of Democrat. At the time, it's important to remember, his party had been in the electoral wilderness for fully a dozen years. (Over the slightly longer term, Democrats had lost five of the previous six presidential elections. Some people were talking about Republicans having a permanent lock on the White House.)

What Bill Clinton did was to wrestle the Democratic Party back toward the center, away from its longstanding, long-losing leftie ways.

Fast-forward nearly two and a half decades, and the Democratic Party today is in a very different place. It's won four of the past six presidential elections, and embraces wholeheartedly the progressive agenda.

Which leads one to ask if the party's presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, is more in the mold of her pragmatic husband, or stands closer to the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party.

Her long history makes a simple answer impossible. Because the truth is that she's got one foot in each camp. She's been pragmatic, and she's been liberal.

Which is why we can feel confident in endorsing her candidacy.

The rap on Clinton, at least from her serious critics, has long been that she's got no overarching governing philosophy. What she believes in, her critics charge, is, well, anyone's guess. She believes in her own changing agenda. One day she supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to use just one recent example, until she doesn't. And then she claims that her earlier position was misunderstood.

But this charge is unfair in the extreme. In the history of modern American politics, such maneuvering isn't exactly unusual. Consider it in these terms: Traditionally, one sought the presidency by running either to the left or toward the right during the primaries, the former for Democrats, and the latter for Republicans.

And then, once the primaries were over and the nomination had been locked up, the candidates would move back toward the middle, seeking to garner the votes of the true independents, the swing voters.

But not this year. Clinton, facing a strong challenge from socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on her left flank, had no choice but to co-opt some of his issues. She'd oppose the big Wall Street banks and would back a significant boost in the minimum wage – to name but two – and wouldn't look back.

In a normal year, the GOP nominee would have become his party's standard-bearer by adopting positions that were largely anathema to those held by the Democratic nominee, and then the candidates would begin their pivot.

But in this upside-down year, in which GOP nominee Donald Trump has held nearly every position under the sun and then some, Clinton has been left with no choice but to stand her leftie ground.

Thankfully, for those who'd like to see her trying to govern with a greater pragmatic tilt, there's reason to believe that a second president Clinton would work to enact legislation that's more in the mold of what was done by the first President Clinton. Think of it as realism with a somewhat leftward lean.

He was both pro-worker and pro-business. He favored trade agreements that would work for our own economy. He was pro-choice, but was able to say that abortions should be rare.

Bill Clinton governed as a centrist. Could Hillary Clinton seek to do the same?

Imagine that she is elected president, but that Republicans still hold the majority in the House, if not in the Senate. There'll be things she'd like to get done, but there'd be no chance of enacting pretty much anything without the backing of GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and his conference.

Can you say "grand compromise"?

Hillary Clinton, as first lady, as twice-elected U.S. senator from the state of New York, and as secretary of state, demonstrated clearly, time and again, that she can work with those with other views to try to better the world for all Americans. Her history promises that she'd be able to do the same as our nation's chief executive.

Her opponent, reality TV star Trump, hasn't been able to show that he can even control himself in debates.

If Clinton had been facing a formidable Republican opponent – Ohio Gov. John Kasich, say – this would have been an entirely different general election. But she's facing Trump. And that alone should make the decision as easy as pie.

On Election Day, the informed, practical, experienced, highly intelligent and reliable Clinton will be on the ballot against a huckster, an entertainer whose act, so distressing from its opening in June of last year, has been increasingly difficult to endure over the past 16 months.

What would be best for Clinton – and the nation – is a convincing win in which she handily dispatches Trump.

The Republican's editorial board encourages voters to support Hillary Clinton on Nov. 8.

