By Jonah Goldberg
Saturday, February 06, 2016
For reasons having to do with Original Sin, I had to
watch the whole Democratic debate last night — sober! So for that, and other reasons too mundane to share, even in
this overly personal missive, I am crankier than the comments section on one of
Kevin Williamson’s articles. So, as Bill Clinton said to the madame after he
dispensed with the pleasantries, let’s get started.
In his play, The
Decision, Berthold Brecht wrote:
Who fights for Communism must be able to fight and not to fight, to
speak the truth and not to speak the truth, to perform services and not to
perform services, to keep promises and not to keep promises, to go into danger
and to keep out of danger, to be recognizable and not to be recognizable. Who
fights for Communism has only one of all the virtues: that he fights for
Communism.
Now, I understand a few things: (1) Socialism and
Communism are not the same thing; (2) Bernie Sanders isn’t a Communist; (3) the
biggest threat to good deli in this country isn’t the decline in pastrami and
corned-beef consumption, but the tendency of bakers to stop making good Jewish
rye.
Oh, sorry, it’s just that I can’t talk about Bernie
Sanders without thinking about deli and when I think deli, I think of the
exquisite genius of the cured-meat arts. And I am quite serious about the
rye-bread thing. Putting caraway seeds in white bread doesn’t make it a good
rye any more than putting apple juice in rubbing alcohol makes it a good
scotch. It may look like it, but then
again, Bill Clinton looks sagely contemplative or attentive as Hillary talks
when in reality he’s indulging his penchant for sacofricosis.
Speaking of appearances being deceiving, back to the
issue at hand. Sanders isn’t fighting for Communism, but he is fighting for
what he thinks socialism is. His notion of what constitutes socialism is fairly
ridiculous — more like an Epcot Center version of Scandinavia circa 1958 or a
fantasy camp for aging hippies called What Might Have Been Land. I can imagine
him as a tour guide on the monorail through “Single Payer Land” noting the
modest garb of the faux Swedes happily waiting in line for prostate exams. “You
see how happy they are!” he shouts into the perfectly good megaphone. “DO YOU
SEE!? THAT IS SOCIALISM!”
A Tale of Two
Politicians
The funny thing about Sanders and Clinton is that neither
is a natural politician. But this works for Sanders and it doesn’t for Hillary.
It works for Sanders because whatever you think about him, it’s pretty apparent
that he is sincere. The man is drawn in indelible ink and there’s no erasing
the contours of his soul.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has been drawn in pencil,
erased, re-drawn and re-erased so many times — like a little kid doing over a
stick figure again and again on the same piece of paper — that the gray smudges
and worn-away tears in the paper are far more permanent than the lines.
It’s not that Hillary can’t be sincere, it’s that she’s
faked sincerity for so long, about so many things, she can’t really be sure if
she’s being sincere.
This helps explain why her sense of humor can be so
awful. When you joke, by definition you’re not being sincere. But if you don’t
know what sincerity is, you can’t successfully craft something fake. It’s like
trying to forge a painting with no clear memory of the image you’re trying to
copy.
For instance, whenever she’s asked an awkward question
she laughs so artificially it makes my dogs bark at the TV screen. When asked
if she “wiped” her server, she responded, “Like with a cloth or something?” No
doubt she thought this was a clever retort, but the retort landed squarely in
the land between sincerity and humor known as failed sarcasm. Almost all of her
“jokes” and a lot of her “sincerity” land there because the only feeling she’s
really in touch with is resentment at having to answer to all the little
people. Bill Clinton could have sold the line about being “broke” coming out of
the White House because Bill can fake sincerity the way a prostitute can fake
enjoyment; he knows exactly what it’s supposed to sound like.
Bernie’s Vanity
Anyway, back to Bernie and Brecht. My problem with
Sanders is that he’s ultimately a coward. He talks a great game about being
dedicated to a “political revolution,” but he is utterly unwilling to employ
the means required to achieve the ends desired.
For instance, Sanders is happy to denounce the political
system as corrupt, but refuses — save by innuendo — to connect the corruption
of the political system to the corruption of House Clinton.
Hillary called it an “artful smear” last night (I joked
on Twitter that Sanders has the “Artful Shmear,” an artisanal bagel shop in
Bensonhurst). But here’s the problem: It’s not artful and not a smear. At least
by the standard of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton is incredibly corrupt. The
Clinton Foundation alone is a violation of everything Sanders stands for. It’s
one giant access-selling enterprise masquerading as a charity.
Then there’s the whole sordid mess of her husband’s
presidency — and I’m not even talking about his playing Baron-and-the-Milkmaid
with the intern. The Clintons rented out the Lincoln bedroom, sold pardons —
including to a shadowy fugitive billionaire! Talk about catering to the
“billionaire class” — and drained so much money from foreign donors (some of it
laundered through a Buddhist temple) that 94 people either fled the country,
refused to testify, or pled the Fifth.
Bernie Sanders has to believe Hillary Clinton is part of
the problem. But he won’t say so, save to prattle on about Clinton’s super PACs
and speaking fees. That’s amateur-hour stuff. It’s academic-seminar-level griping,
not revolution-fomenting. He wants to talk
about the system, but he won’t do
what is minimally required to change it. And right now, the first step on that
long road is steamrolling Hillary Clinton. It’s like saying you want to do
whatever it takes to fight malaria, but refusing to say much about the huge,
sprawling, and fetid marshlands in the middle of downtown. The Clintons are
swamp creatures, taking what they need and leaving in their retromingent wake
the stench of corruption.
If Bernie Sanders had the conviction of a real Communist,
or even one of America’s great socialists, he would make this personal, he would recognize the opportunity he has
and seize upon it. But his vanity is too important, his reputation too
precious. If he honestly believes the stakes are what he says they are, then
surely it’s worth getting a little dirty. It’s not like the Clintons aren’t
willing to get dirty. If anything, they’ve never been remotely interested in
getting clean.
Oh and I will confess, I want Bernie to take this race
for two simple reasons: I want Hillary to lose and I want Republicans to face
Sanders in the general election. Strategically we couldn’t be more at odds, but
tactically Sanders and I are totally on the same page — for now.
The Server Gambit
Last night Hillary Clinton made it clear that she is
going to brazen it out on the e-mail controversy. She said, “I never sent or
received any classified material.” Then there was this exchange:
CHUCK TODD: All right, Madam Secretary, there is an open — there is an
open FBI investigation into this matter about how you may have handled
classified material. Are you 100 percent confident that nothing is going to
come of this FBI investigation?
CLINTON: I am 100 percent confident. This is a security review that was
requested. It is being carried out. It will be resolved. But I have to add, if
there’s going to be a security review about me, there’s going to have to be
security reviews about a lot of other people, including Republican office
holders, because we’ve got this absurd situation of retroactive
classifications.
Honest to goodness, this is — this just beggars the imagination. So I
have absolutely no concerns about it, but we’ve got to get to the bottom of
what’s really going on here, and I hope that will happen.
This is a farrago of lies. She did send and receive
classified information. It’s not a “security review,” the relevant issue isn’t
“retroactive classification,” and the Republican officeholders did not do the
same thing as Hillary. Rather, it’s a criminal inquiry concerning, among other
things, classified material that was classified at the time. The Republicans in
question did not have homebrewed private servers set up to deliberately evade
oversight and FOIA, and the e-mails they had were not from the intelligence
community (as Ed Morrisey notes, the secretary of state has plenty of authority
to declassify information that comes from within
the State Department). But the biggest lie was probably when she said, “I have
absolutely no concerns about it.” Of course she does. That’s why she issued the
clear warning that if the FBI comes after her, Team Clinton is going to take
everyone down. That’s what the Clintons do. When they have no legitimate
defense of their behavior — which is quite often — they attack or threaten
others.
They also make their transgressions other people’s
problems. As I’ve written before, the Clintons are master gaslighters.
Gaslighting is when you violate all sorts of norms of decent behavior and
pretend that the people who notice or care are the weird ones. Hillary
Clinton’s crimes are a thousand times worse than the accidental outing of
Valerie Plame. But she acts as if caring about it — at all! — is obsessive
partisanship. Thus, she is upping the pressure on the FBI immensely. She’s
basically saying, “If you want come after my candidacy, be prepared for us
calling you irrational partisans on a political vendetta.” She won’t blink. The
question is, will the FBI?
No comments:
Post a Comment