By Jonah Goldberg
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Don’t worry, I’m not going to start out with another rant
about Trump — I know folks are getting tired about that. (Though I will note
that they said if I didn’t support the party nominee, giant
pythons would start slithering up through toilet holes to bite off our penises
— and they were right!)
Instead, I’ll start with a rant about Clinton.
I’ve been thinking. I think Clinton needs to become a
verb.
But first, the sort of lexicological rambling discursion
few readers have been waiting for! The English language is full of words that
were inspired by people.
The following (awful) paragraph contains well more than a
dozen words inspired by people. Can you spot them?
Female chauvinists
pushing for the mainstreaming of Rubenesque women into pop-culture have an
almost sadistic desire to celebrate Lena Dunham’s relentless nudity (though
some masochistic Casanovas may stroke their sideburns lasciviously at the
prospect). But I’m no pompadoured martinet of the comstocks or cultural
McCarthyites, arguing that “artistic” speech be bowdlerized. I will not give in
to Orwellian zeal nor enlist in some Luddite lynch mob hell-bent on stopping
the wattage wasted on such fare. Better to pursue a more Machiavellian strategy
of boycotting until she dons a cardigan or at least a leotard.
I’ll give you a few hints: “Chauvinism” — an extreme
belief in the superiority of your nation, your gender, etc. — was named after
Nicholas Chauvin, a soldier in Napoleon’s army, who was a zealous partisan for
his leader. Masochism — taking pleasure, usually sexually, in being hurt or
abused — is derived from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, an Austrian novelist who
wrote about such things. This is in contrast to “sadism” — inspired by the
Marquis de Sade and his love of cruelty for its own sake. He was known to
invite people to his home to screen Caddyshack
but when the guests got there, they were forced to watch Caddyshack II.
Anyway, so where was I? Oh, right.
‘To Clinton’
We need to make “Clintoning” a thing. (I’d argue the same
for Trump, but he brilliantly picked a last name that already means something.
If I had his last name, every time I got into a whose-business-card-is-better
contest — which is actually never — I’d slap mine down and shout, “That’s the
Trump card, bitches.”)
The first problem is there are two Clintons. Back when it
was really just Bubba out there, the term would be unavoidably sexual. I’m
reminded of Michael Kinsley’s response when the Clinton White House was
insisting Bill was simply Monica Lewinsky’s mentor. It went something like,
“Yeah, right. I’m sure he mentored her senseless.”
I don’t mean to be unduly harsh — just duly harsh — but
Hillary makes any of the limerick-quality double entendres unworkable. That’s
particularly unfortunate because Rodham, her maiden name, is particularly
well-suited for such associations. “Jeffrey Epstein’s plane was like a
Caligulan entourage of Rodhamanites.”
Appetite All the
Way Down
The amazing thing about Hillary and Bill Clinton is that
they are united by no central idea, no governing philosophy that doesn’t — upon
close inspection — boil down to the idea that they should be in charge.
Yes, I know. That’s not what they would say. They would
argue that with the right experts in charge, the government can do wonderful
things to help people. But what the government should do is constantly
changing, according to both of them. Bill once declared, “The Era of Big
Government is over.” He didn’t mean it. He certainly didn’t want it to be true.
He just said it because that’s what he does: He says what he needs to say. I
don’t approvingly quote Jesse Jackson all that often (though I do find myself
saying, “Keep hope alive,” a lot these days), but I think he had it right when
he said Bill had no core beliefs, he was all appetite.
Hillary, in her own way, strikes me as even worse in this
regard. Can you name a single substantial policy that she hasn’t flipped on —
or wouldn’t change — if it were in her political self-interest? Gay marriage?
Free trade? Illegal immigration?
Strip away all of the political posturing and positioning,
and their “philosophy” that government run by experts can do wonderful things
should really be translated as “government run by us.”
Clinton’s defenders argue that her changing policy
approaches are just signs of her “pragmatism.” And don’t worry, I won’t rant
about pragmatism again, either. But liberal pragmatism begins and ends from a
single first principle: Liberals must be in power to decide what is
“pragmatic.” And when conservatives are in charge, the only form of acceptable
pragmatism is . . . compromising with liberals.
That is why both Clintons are such unapologetic liars.
Pragmatism bills itself as being beyond ideology and “labels.” Well, if you
don’t feel bound to any objective ideological or even ontological criteria —
labels, after all, are the words we use to describe reality — why not lie? Why
not wax philosophic about the meaning of “is”? If attaining and wielding power
is your only benchmark, the ethical imperative of telling the truth is no
imperative at all. It’s just another false ideological construct.
It’s kind of interesting when you think about it. Since
the Clintons respect only power, the only power they respect is that of the
law. Which is why the only times they can be counted upon to tell the truth is
when the law absolutely requires it — or may require it down the road. Of
course, as lawyers, they are artists at telling only the minimum amount of the
truth absolutely required of them. The flipside is that because they are
lawyers, when they resort to legalistic language, it’s a tell that they’re
lying.
For instance, when Hillary Clinton went on the Today Show in 1998 to address the
growing Lewinsky scandal, she blamed it all on a vast right-wing conspiracy.
When asked what it would mean if the allegations were true, she said:
Well, I think that — if all that were proven true, I think that would be
a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true.
Note: She didn’t say “if it were true.” She said, “if it
were proven true” — twice. She had every intention of concealing the truth. It
just turned out that this time her cover-up skills weren’t up to the task. This
is the same tactic we see in the e-mail scandal. “There is no classified
information.” We’re constantly told, “There is no smoking gun!” Which is just
another way of saying, “You can’t prove it!” Not, “I didn’t do it.” Again: The
server is the smoking gun.
This is the meaning most people already associate with
“Clintonian,” and I’m fairly confident that meaning will last a long time. But
I don’t think it goes far enough. So what would be the definition of the verb
form — “to Clinton” — be? I’m thinking something like “to say whatever the
moment requires, with an eye to being able to defend the statement under oath.”
As in, “I clintoned the Hell out of that deposition.” Or “they asked her if she
knowingly violated the law, but she clintoned her way out of it.”
But I’m open to other suggestions.
Once More, with
Feeling
In my column today I go after Hillary Clinton with some
gusto. Of course, that’s sort of what I do. Unlike the man who just won the
Republican nomination, I’ve been going hammer and tongs against the Clintons
for 20 years (when he was cutting her checks). I rarely write about all the
Clinton impeachment stuff and my meager role in it anymore, because I had my
fill of all that. But just as a matter of bona fides, I figured I’d note that
when Hillary Clinton went on The Today
Show to denounce the “vast right-wing conspiracy” perpetuating lies against
her priapistic husband, they asked a supposed ringleader of that cabal to
respond the next day. They invited yours truly.
In other words, I go way back in this stuff. Contrary to
popular impressions, the contemporary stuff in my book Liberal Fascism was written with her in mind — I had no idea Barack
Obama would come along and further confirm my thesis.
Anyway, my point is that, at least among the
non-obsessed, non-conspiratorial ranks of Clinton critics, I take a backseat to
no one in my contempt for the Medicis of the Ozarks. (I used to say “Tudors of
the Ozarks for the euphony, but I’ve switched to the Medicis for accuracy’s
sake.)
I bring this up to clarify something I’ve been trying to
communicate for months, to only limited success: I’m going to tell the truth as
I see it.
In response to my column today I got a number of
complaints from friendly readers who’ve celebrated my opposition to Trump but
are suddenly cross with me for criticizing Clinton. Here’s a portion of a
thoughtful one:
Jonah — all of the Trump supporters
who hammer you all the time about how your constant bashing of Trump are only
helping Hilary get elected are absolutely correct. In what is effectively a
two-person race, when high profile pundits like yourself and Charles Cooke or
anyone else at NR forcefully argue that Trump is not qualified to be president,
you are obviously helping Hilary get elected.
However, when you state (as you did
today) that Hillary is unqualified to be president or, as you did in your
G-file, that in a tie you would support Trump, then you are in effect
supporting Trump for the very reason that Charles Murray so convincingly
explained is not a good reason — because he isn’t Hilary.
Any opinion journalist like
yourself who regularly calls Hilary unqualified or states that in a tie Trump
is preferable, should be held complicit if Trump wins. And that is such a scary
thought for all the reasons Murray laid out that it is beyond me why anyone
would not support Clinton in a tie . . .
I get it. And I’ll be honest, I’m open to rethinking my
position that if I had to break the tie, I’d vote for Trump. But that’s a
conversation for another day. The point I want to make here — again! — is that
I’m just going to write what I believe to be true and let the chips fall where
they may. In this I have a slight disagreement with the likes of Charles Murray
and P. J. O’Rourke. It is almost the same disagreement I have with reluctant
Trump supporters like Dennis Prager: I refuse to be bound to the binary choice
of being pro-one and anti-the-other. I’m opposed to them both and I’m going to
say so.
James Taranto said the other day that #NeverTrump is more
Ayn Rand than William F. Buckley.
I think he’s almost surely wrong about Buckley, but his
point about Rand is useful. You wouldn’t expect Ayn Rand to rally to either
candidate. Invocations of “party unity” would mean nothing to her. And while
there’s a very long list of reasons why I am not like Ayn Rand, on this narrow
point, consider me a Randian.
Or better yet, consider me a Nockian. Albert J. Nock had
contempt for politicians of all stripes, because they were handmaidens and
priests of the Leviathan State (I don’t quite go that far, but I’m getting
closer by the day). If you asked him to say things he didn’t think were true
about, say, Al Smith or Herbert Hoover, he’d laugh. If you said, “But if you
don’t support Hoover, Smith will become president!” He’d turn to the camera
like Eddie Murphy in Trading Places
when the Dukes explain that bacon is “what you might find in a bacon, lettuce
and tomato sandwich.”
If this course makes me irrelevant, so be it. But I
should say, the rabidly pro-Trump folks in my Twitter feed are suffering from a
bizarre cognitive dissonance. They insist that I am an irrelevant shmuck at a
dying magazine with no influence whatsoever. Simultaneously, however, they also
argue that if Trump loses I will be to blame for Hillary Clinton’s being
president. They both can’t be true.
Fecal Fare
When Congress took up the Wall Street bailout bill almost
eight years ago, John Boehner said, “I think this thing is a crap sandwich” —
but he’d vote for it anyway. I said at the time, “It is crap sandwiches for as
far as the eye can see.” I was right. What I hadn’t appreciated is how far past
the horizon the massive fecal sub would stretch.
To change the metaphor just slightly, the choice we now
face is between two different s*** sandwiches. One may have better condiments
or fresher bread. One may come with fries while the other comes with noodle
salad. I am open to arguments that one meal is, on net, better than the other.
But I am not going to stand here and say one is tuna on toast or the other is
bologna on rye. It is what it is, and the most I can do is describe the menu
accurately.
As a country we will in all likelihood have to eat one or
the other meal over the next four years (and we’ll be told to like it). For
those of you who might still care to listen to me then, I’ll be able to say,
“You were warned.”
No comments:
Post a Comment