Last week, this author dissected the foreign policy of presumed Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump. This week, it is Hillary Clinton’s turn, since she is the likely Democratic nominee.

Hillary Clinton presents an interesting phenomenon when it comes to examining her professed—and practiced—foreign policy. For starters, she is a Democrat. In American politics, that places her squarely within the party that often comes down on the side of “peace,” and in favor of diplomacy over military action. Often, but not always. After all, Democratic presidents have attempted to overthrow governments (Cuba), have escalated wars (Vietnam), and have supported armed interventions (Libya). So, perhaps that is an antiquated view of the American left.

Despite being a Democrat, Mrs. Clinton is often referred to as a “hawk,” usually by Republicans or more left-leaning Democrats, seeking to disparage her. This is an accurate label, as far as this author is concerned. Mrs. Clinton has, after all, advocated armed regime change (in Libya and Iraq), and more often than not, has reportedly come down on the side of military action in debates within the Obama administration foreign-policy team. Calling her a “hawk” is not unfair.

If we are seeking to clarify her views on foreign policy, though, we must first stipulate that being labeled a Democratic “hawk” does not imply the same thing as being called a “hawk” within the Republican party. And, of course, neither of those labels is the same as “aggressive isolationist,” along the lines of Donald J. Trump, the current GOP nominee.

Therefore, comparisons and labels are probably not the most illustrative way to examine Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy. Instead, let us simply lay those policies out as they are put forward by Mrs. Clinton herself, on her website, just like we did for Mr. Trump.

National security

Mrs. Clinton should be properly labeled an “idealist” when it comes to her professed foreign policy. Idealism, as opposed to realism in international relations, essentially entails projecting one’s “principles” or “values” on foreign-policy goals. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton, for example, pushes for LGBT and gender rights across the globe, according to her website, even though those ideals might not mesh well with the internal policies of some of our strongest allies. A realist would probably say, on the other hand, that we need Saudi Arabia as an ally, so America should ignore its policies on gays and women as long as the country remains a strategic ally.

Mrs. Clinton is also a staunch believer in alliances with other nations, which meshes well with her foreign-policy idealism. Hers is not so much a call for hard-nosed strategic alliances based on shared interests, but rather, a call to engage in “partnerships” across the globe, with people and nations who share “our values and vision for the future.”

Now, this author is not so naive as to assume that Mrs. Clinton is peering through a completely idealistic lens in this call for strengthened alliances. There is also a touch of realism here, perhaps dressed up in idealism to some degree, to appeal to the more dovish, liberal wing of the Democratic party. Either way, Mrs. Clinton calls for strengthened alliances across the globe, which this author sees as a net positive.