Adventures in Gall (Part Two): The Return of the Queen


The most recent post on this blog dealt with the loathsome Samantha Power, summarizing her vapid yet destructive ‘contributions’ – such as they are – to the world scene as well as her shameless virtue-signalling (if any distinction can be made between the two, which I consider unlikely, both ‘humanitarian interventionism’ and ‘right to protect’ amounting to little more than virtue-signalling substituted for actual policy). In fact though, the original intention was to treat Power and Hillary in single post, using Power’s long-on-networking, short-on-content career path to segue in to the latest news from Hillary-world.

As usual, Hillary confounded that plan.  Part of the problem in dealing with Hillary’s corruption and dishonesty in a timely manner is that it comes so quickly and in such volume, requiring something more along the lines of a ticker tape than an essay form; when Hillary is in the news, she’s All-In, deploying armies of surrogates to spin on her behalf (Although one happy accident of splitting these two posts was the ability to use the extra space in the Samantha Power post to recount in some detail the macabre story of the African boy run over by Power’s motorcade).

Apparently still convinced that making funny faces is an effective way of appearing human for an audience, Hillary mugs for the camera.

At any rate, nowhere is the toxic axis of Technocracy > Credentialism > Careerism outlined in our Samantha Power post – and in the CV of practically every other Obama crony, to be honest – more apparent than in the person of Hillary Clinton.  Like the sour taste left after vomiting out a contaminated meal, Hillary is back yet again, this time pushing a book which is little more than a litany of self-pity and passive aggressive blame-shifting hidden beneath a veneer of technocratic policy-mongering.

I dealt with Hillary’s mendacity when she first poked her nose out from her Westchester County rathole following her defeat – her unintentionally hilarious appearance at CodeCon – so I won’t rehash her copious character flaws here (like most bad things, there’s a remarkable thread of sameness stretching through Hillary’s decades of money-grubbing and incompetence).  Luckily Thomas Frank (hardly a conservative) has summarized Hillary’s recent reappearance quite well in The Guardian (hardly a right-wing source):

A would-be do-gooder needs problems to solve, of course, and so Clinton says she turned next to the people who knew what was wrong. “I started calling policy experts,” she writes, “reading thick binders of memos, and making lists of problems that needed more thought.” Lists of problems and solutions are everywhere; reeling them off one after another is one of her favorite rhetorical devices, her way of checking the boxes and letting everyone know that she cares.

Proceeding in this rational, expert-sanctioned way, Hillary Clinton set out resolutely on the road to oblivion… Countless inconvenient items get deleted from her history. She only writes about trade, for example, in the most general terms; NAFTA and the TPP never. Her husband’s program of bank deregulation is photoshopped out. The names Goldman Sachs and Walmart never come up.

Frank may be a leftist but he’s intelligent and sincere; when Hillary proposes ‘critical thinking’ from the next generation of our crony-net technocratic aristocracy as the solution to our ills, Frank rightly calls out the self-serving fallacy of proposing ‘More establishment!’ as the solution to the problems of a corrupt and sclerotic establishment:

That Clinton might have done well to temper her technocratic style with some populist outrage of her own only dawns on her towards the end of the book, by which point it is too late.  Not to mention impossible. Hillary Clinton simply cannot escape her satisfied white-collar worldview – compulsively listing people’s academic credentials, hobnobbing with officers from Facebook and Google, and telling readers how she went to Davos in 1998 to announce her philosophy.

And then, in her concluding chapter, returning to her beloved alma mater Wellesley College and informing graduates of that prestigious institution that, with their “capacity for critical thinking” (among other things) they were “precisely what we needed in America in 2017.”  I wish it were so. I wish that another crop of elite college grads were what we needed. I wish Hillary’s experts and her enlightened [neoliberal] friends could step in and fix this shabby America we inhabit today…I wish it were all a matter of having a checklist of think-tank approved policy solutions. But I know for sure it isn’t. And voters knew that, too.

 

The New Yorker. Yes, The New Yorker.

However, despite Thomas Frank’s attempt to pull the wizard out from behind his curtain, all is not lost for Hillary (sadly, it never is – just ask Jedediah Bila who was let go from The View for asking Hillary a fair but unwelcome question). Cultivating friendly media is one of the core skills of a careerist social-climber in our political establishment – and, as Wikileaks demonstrated, who knows this better than Hillary Clinton? – with perhaps no outlet better at long-form shilling than The New Yorker and its senior correspondent, David Remnick.

Remnick functions as a sort of court stenographer for the establishment left, famous for writing an authorized biography and conducting numerous interviews with Barack Obama; now he really sets the spin machine to Moto GP RPM levels in his latest piece, ‘Hillary Clinton Looks Back In Anger‘.

Hillary the Prophet addresses her people: “If only ye had come unto me, Oh stunned and stunted American people, I would have had to bind your wounds and you would have been healed”

Remnick starts off strong, pegging the needle Gall-O-Meter into the red when he trashes Hillary’s opponent as a ‘demonstrably crooked’ and ‘unsavory demagogue’ whose conduct violated ‘constitutional norms’ – all descriptions Hillary could wear like a $6500 pantsuit. Remnick moves on from there, quickly subjecting the events of Election Night to his wash-and-rinse:

[As] Clinton said when we met recently for a long conversation, the process of thinking about it all—Trump looming over her like a predator at the second debate, the incessant drumbeat of “e-mails, e-mails, e-mails,” awaking from a nap on Election Night and being told that Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and the election itself had all slipped away—was like willfully reënacting a hideous accident.

Does anyone really believe that Hillary was napping while the event she’d spent her entire life preparing for was unfolding?  Let’s be honest here – she’d seen the early returns from FL, figured out what the shellacking she’d taken in OH meant for her chances in PA, MI and WI, and was already stalking her hotel suite in her housecoat, well into a drunken rage bender.

The Long Island mob wives in Goodfellas had Hillary pegged to a T.

The gall reaches Olympian proportions when Hillary takes it upon herself to criticize (rather incoherently we must note; she seems quite prone to rambling conspiratorial diatribes these days) the current administration for their handling of North Korea’s overtly threatening nuclear developments.  Hillary Clinton, whose husband’s administration approved the DPRK’s running of nuclear reactors as part of a ‘denuclearization agreement’ (LOL) and whose tenure as Secretary of State did absolutely nothing to halt the DPRK’s advances in either missile technology or warhead development, is suddenly sounding the alarm over ‘aggressive behavior’?

Trump, Clinton went on, “is immature, with poor impulse control; unqualified for the position that he holds; reactive, not proactive; not strategic, either at home or on the world stage. And I think he is unpredictable, which, at the end of the description one can give of him, makes him dangerous. The latest incident with North Korea? Going after our ally, South Korea, while North Korea is threatening the region, threatening us? Going after China, which we need, whether we like it or not, to help us try to resolve the aggressive behavior of Kim Jong Un? It puts a smile on Kim’s face. Just like him going after NATO and the Atlantic alliance puts a smile on Putin’s face. He admires authoritarians. In fact, before this crisis with North Korea, he was praising Kim Jong Un. He clearly has a bromance toward Putin, whom he lauds as a great leader. He’s being played by the Putins and the Kim Jong Uns of the world. I’m not even sure he’s aware of that. Because he has such a limited understanding of the world. Everything is in relation to how it makes him feel. And therefore he has little objective distance, which a leader must have. Making decisions in the Oval Office requires a level of dispassionate, reasoned analysis. We’ve seen no evidence he’s capable of that.”

Of course we’ve seen little evidence of ‘dispassionate, reasoned analysis’ from Hillary either (unless counting the kickback money to the Clinton Foundation before approving, say, a sale of uranium mining interests falls under that category).

Hillary ends her diatribe mourning, of all things, a lack of Chinese influence in our foreign policy, which is quite laughable, given her family’s history with the PRC (Here, here, here, here and here):

“There are no diplomats at home. There are no China experts. I don’t know who is left in the government at any level of experience and seniority who could be brought into the kind of diplomatic effort that I would advocate for. You should have an envoy that carries the imprimatur of the President in Korea right now, shuttling between Tokyo and Seoul and Beijing, and trying to figure out what is the best way forward here.”

In my eyes the current situation with China represents the clearest example of the utter failure of our neoliberal establishment (But in the interest of editorial transparency, I’m precisely the type of person who would say that, being one of the millions of Americans who saw a once-prosperous living wither and die on the vine after China’s ascension to the WTO).  Nowhere is the utter failure of the transnational technocratic policies and institutions that the neoliberals espouse more obvious than in the case of China.

Despite assurances that ‘engagement’ with China would usher in a new era of peace and security (Paging St Paul!), the result since they were admitted to the WTO has been just the opposite, China’s misdeeds over the past two decades including the following:

Now, even though it’s become clear that the so-called ‘integration’ of the PRC into the global community (LOL) is an abject failure – a failure which, to be perfectly fair stretches back through both Dem and GOP administrations, clear to GHWB’s spineless reaction to the Tiananmen Square massacre – the answer on both sides of the aisle seem to be more of the same (Even a stalwart so-called ‘populist leftist’ like Bernie Sanders refused to propose a Border Adjustment Tax to pay for his ‘Medicare for All’ boondoggle, showing how deep and wide the tank is).

It’s reassuring to believe that eventually Hillary’s corruption, incompetence and mendacity will catch up with her but after blogging about her at some length, I’m not so sure.  She may not have many virtues, but she is definitely enduring, willing to overwhelm her detractors through sheer persistence; every time you choose to write about her, it turns into a +2000 word adventure just to cover it all adequately.

Tony Soprano perfectly sums up the life of a Hillary opponent.

As it is, if Hillary lives long enough – a distinct possibility given medical technology, introducing the truly horrifying idea of a General Grievous style cyborg Hillary – she could very well have the last laugh (or, better said, cackle), wearing down all of her opponents, sitting perched on her mountain of foreign money in a hundred year Reign of Sleaze.