Thursday, August 7, 2014

Are You Ready For Hillary?

Well, I'm not. Never have been, never will be. And yet there she is, rising out of the murky depths of the sea (or of the Democratic Party, whichever is murkier) like Godzilla, making a bee-line for Tokyo – or, in this case, Washington. And no one can stop her (although Obama did, back in 2008). And, after all, what are the alternatives? Joe Biden? Please. Nancy Pelosi? No matter how deep you dig among the Democrats, you find nothing but unindicted felons, sociopaths, con artists, moral pygmies, and would-be mini-Stalins. And considering that the presidency has become a largely ceremonial office, maybe it doesn't make much difference. After all, Bill Clinton's presidency gave us more juicy scandals and laughs than any in recent history; who's to say Hillary's won't be just as amusing?

And yet there are differences. All Bill Clinton ever wanted, from the cradle, was to be president – but once in office, he ran out of ideas. Oh sure, he pursued the usual menu of liberal, totalitarian, nanny-state legislation and regulation, and was responsible for a few desultory mini-wars, but basically his administration was relatively benign since it was all about him and nothing else. Even “Clinton Care”, which was defeated thanks to a full-court press by the Republicans, was more aptly named “Hillary Care”, since she was spearheading the campaign. So he was not really an “idea person”, whereas Hillary is. She is, in other words, a true believer, though perhaps not as fanatical as the likes of John McCain (or – shudder – Sarah Palin). She has an agenda which she will pursue no matter who tries to get in the way, and I imagine that since Obama Care is “the law of the land” she will use it as a jumping-off point for further tyrannies.

Another difference is that the first Clinton administration was rightly called “a vacation from history”, and it was, in a way, kind of like a college spring break, with all the behaviors we have come to expect from such free-for-alls. But 9/11 changed all this, and we embarked on a War on Islam (to call it by its proper name, and the name by which I expect it to be called by future historians) which continues to this day and shows no signs of ending in our lifetimes or those of anyone else. America needs enemies in order to maintain its self image as savior of the world, and it was only a matter of time before communism (a bonafide enemy, in my opinion) was replaced by something just as big, bad, and scary. And what better enemy than Islam, AKA “terrorism”, which is everywhere and nowhere... where there is no agreement as to how it is to be fought, let alone what the criteria might be for victory. Communism, on the other hand, was everywhere in some senses, but it did have a solid geographical base, namely the Soviet Union, with China as a kind of secondary base. And Islam has a geographical base as well, but “terrorism” is truly everywhere and is thus an ideal perpetual enemy conducive to perpetual war – which seems to be the goal at this stage of the devolution of the American Empire. It's a goal, but really more of a process, since the goal is either undefined or defined in a nonsensical way, like “eliminate terrorism”, which is sort of like saying “eliminate bad weather”. Once we define an enemy that can't be defeated, and can only be barely defined, we are assured of endless conflict... and endless conflict is a tool of empire-building but it can also be a death sentence for empires. No empire in its right mind (so to speak) down through history has declared its mission to be the extermination of an idea that can arise in any place at any time. Communism came close with its war on “capitalism” and “imperialism”, but since it had its own version of imperialism it was compromised from the start, and “capitalism” is a much fuzzier concept than Marx or his followers would have liked to admit. Depending on which propaganda organ one read or listened to, “capitalism” could range from the stereotyped cigar-smoking, top hat-wearing industrialist down to some farmer who was slightly smarter than his neighbors and managed to have two cows when his neighbor had only one. (This was sufficient grounds for persecution and extermination, as we saw in the case of the Russian kulaks.)

So yes, Hillary is, unlike Bill, a theorist. Politics was a game for him, but for her it's deadly serious.  She has an idea, a model, for the way things ought to be, and intends to pursue it with a vengeance. Obama has stolen one of her favorite ideas and made it work – sort of. At least he managed to make it into law (which he has no problem breaking from time to time, but hey, it was his idea so he has a right – right?). And yet, we also know (because the evidence is overwhelming) that Obama is no more than a figurehead – a face in a suit. He's a tool of Wall Street, of the armaments makers, of the international banking/financial cartel, and of Israel – and the neocons, who had a field day under Bush II, remain extremely influential in foreign policy (with the Evangelicals acting as a cheering section, even though they are despised by the Democrats). So... are these really the shoes that Hillary wants to fill? Because there are no other shoes out there, folks. The Republicans would like to fill those shoes in their own way, but the outcome would not be that much different. What I'm saying is that Hillary, once in office, will feel the full weight of all of these entities, which are much more than mere “interest groups”. These are the people who are in charge, and who have been for a couple of generations at least, and there is no way they're going to give up any of that power and influence. They'll have about as much respect for “the first woman president” as they have for “the first black president”, whom they treat like an errand boy.

So what does Hillary do, once she gets “the talk”? (You know, it's that “briefing” or “orientation meeting” that every president gets his/her first day in office, even before the inaugural festivities get under way.) Rebel? Appeal directly to the people? (Lots of luck with that.) Or, does she do what they all do, which is to resign herself to being a figurehead... to getting great apparent power but little real power... to riding high and lording it over the peasantry, while knowing that she will have to answer, for every action, to higher powers. Will, she, in other words, be as much of a willing tool as Bush II and Obama, or will she strain against the traces? And if the latter, what will the Regime's response be? All I'm saying is that they may be in for a surprise. So far, she has shown herself to be a good and loyal soldier and political operative – an “agent of change” extraordinaire, while at the same being conservative in the sense of never questioning the basic premises of liberalism, no matter how many failures and catastrophes result. But -- she hasn't been president yet. There is something about that office, with all of its perks and grandeur... living in that whited sepulcher called The White House... that tends to unbalance the mind. We've seen it before, most notably with FDR, Nixon, Bill Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. When you're crowned king (or queen) before millions of people and treated like some Oriental potentate, you start to believe it – and it's that belief that, as much as anything else, contributes to your downfall. You find that, far from being the most powerful person on the planet, you become the most pathetic of men (or women), answerable to unnamed and unseen powers while all the time pretending to be answerable to “the people”. You become no more than a glorified slave. And one could say, well, Hillary “ought to know”, by now, that that's the way things are – after all, wasn't she “co-president” for 8 years? And yet, denial is a powerful factor in people in general, and in politicians in particular. She probably thinks Bill sold out – which he did in some respects, because, as I've said, he is not an idea person. He's much more concerned about his image – about being liked – whereas she doesn't give a rat's derrière whether she's liked or not; in fact, I think she prefers hostility. It's more familiar, more comforting, and it removes any barriers that might exist to treating people like the maggots she's convinced they are.

So the real question is not whether we're ready for Hillary. The question is whether Hillary is ready for the grim realities of occupying “the highest office in the land” when that land is a fading empire ruled by people who care not a whit about the idea, or ideals – however unfulfilled -- of America. She may turn out to be one of those rulers, who knows? But it's more likely that, like nearly all politicians, she will wind up being one of the ruled. Someone once said that anything the public is allowed to vote on can't be that important – and the presidency is no exception. When democracy devolves from a political system to a intricate matrix of delusion, we can fully expect to wind up with candidates, and presidents, like Hillary.

No comments: