The choices we face in the next presidential election are disheartening. Donald Trump may be unqualified to serve as president, but Hillary Clinton has a proven track record of incompetence spanning decades. Just about everything she touches ends up a fiasco. She has a reverse Midas touch, which is not a desirable quality for the president of the United States, especially when the American economy is now in stagnation mode.
Clinton’s fiascos, at least on the national stage, began in 1993. Without any particular experience and evidently because she married a man who became president, Hillary was given the job of overseeing the effort to redesign one sixth of the U.S. economy a.k.a. health care. After the HillaryCare fiasco, Clinton followed up by relinquishing all dignity and submitting to one of the greatest humiliations in the history of adultery. And all because she needed to ride Bill Clinton’s coattails to the senate and presidency.
And ride those coattails she did, straight to the senate and automatic berth as the front-runner for president in 2008. And we know how that turned out. Despite the campaign fiasco, it was decided she should be secretary of state. Yeah, that’s the ticket. But she wasn’t completely without international experience. After all, there’s her 1995 United Nations conference speech in Beijing claiming that women’s rights are human rights, which might have been bold if given in 1895 or 1795. But never mind.
The frequency of the fiascos increased as Clinton took over at the State Department. The Russia reset, Libyan policy in general, and the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, including the U.S. ambassador: fiascos one and all. And of course, the controversy over Clinton’s private email server and her handling of classified information while at State is a fiasco that would have gotten a regular person in a non-corrupt society indicted.
As if Hillary Clinton couldn’t generate enough fiascos on her own, in comes her husband to add to the list. A lot has been written about the airplane meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport, with most people wondering how Clinton and Lynch could have been so stupid. One theory is that Clinton and Lynch knew exactly what they were doing, which was to send a strong message to the professional prosecutors that Lynch and the Clintons are on the same team (see here).
Perhaps this is true, but another simpler explanation could be that Clinton and Lynch are psychopaths, like most of the liberals now in power. Psychopaths are egocentric, remorseless, manipulative, pathological liars who believe the law does not apply to them (and that’s apparently true given the FBI’s spineless recommendation in the Clinton email case). That sounds about right for both Clintons (not to mention Barack Obama) and now we can add Loretta Lynch to this crackpot mix.
Trump has generated his own list of fiascos, but at least they’re in the private sector, and economic losses are as important to a healthy market economy as are profits. The efforts of Hillary and Bill in the private sector have put them among the one percent, but they have created no value to justify their wealth. Compare the speeches they give (that Hillary refuses to make public) with the kind of value created by a Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or even a Donald Trump. The Clintons are economic parasites and yet after elected president, Hillary promises to put Bill in charge of the economy. That should work.
It’s especially hilarious when liberals label Trump a fascist, especially given that his opponent is Hillary Clinton. Annoyed that liberals often call conservatives “fascist” (not that Trump is a conservative), Jonah Goldberg wrote a book to set the record straight, tracing out how fascism shares the same intellectual roots as socialism, progressivism, and modern day liberalism (see here). Which is to say that fascism is a collective ideology of the left, not the right.
In his book, Goldberg devoted a whole chapter to Hillary Clinton, calling her the “First Lady of Liberal Fascism.” Goldberg argues that Clinton’s “politics of meaning” speech in 1993 is “in many respects the most thoroughly totalitarian conception of politics offered by a leading American political figure in the last half century.” Goldberg also finds that the society depicted in Clinton’s book It Takes a Village contains all the “hallmarks of the fascist enterprise.”
According to Goldberg, Clinton’s fascism is not the evil sort like that of the Nazis, but is the maternal kind found in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. It is a kinder, gentler form of fascism, but fascism nevertheless that would eliminate the distinction between public and private life in favor of a “spiritual community” managed by the state down to the last detail, including life within the family.
Things indeed look bleak, no matter who is elected president in November.