And how did she become head of the DNC? Anointed again, this time by the smartest man on earth, who knows a loyal party hack when he sees one:
On April 5, 2011, Vice President Joe Biden announced that she was President Barack Obama’s choice to succeed Tim Kaine as the 52nd Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
When you think about it, it’s an unsurprising trajectory. You might call it undistinguished as background for DNC chair, but it’s really not. Wasserman Schultz has been getting ready for this job her whole life. The only problem is that she’s been in a liberal bubble so long that she hasn’t needed to make much sense before, and she’s had very little practice in doing so. It shows.
Here’s operative Wasserman Schultz in action, sticking doggedly to her bizarre talking points in the face of an onslaught by Wolf Blitzer on a different topic. To Wasserman Schultz, 2+2=5 if the party says so, although sometimes it can be a bit of a struggle to clarify to a non-party member just how it is that the math can all work out if you only believe hard enough:
How to explain such bobbing and weaving, and the ability to keep a straight face through it all? Wasserman Schultz is not stupid, although she may appear to be.
For some valuable insight into the mind of someone dedicated to the party, right or wrong, please read the following excerpt from an essay by Hilton Kramer. Here Kramer is writing about Stalinists and their mind games. But his words could serve equally well for Wasserman Schultz and her ilk:
It is in the nature of Stalinism for its adherents to make a certain kind of lying—and not only to others, but first of all to themselves—a fundamental part of their lives. It is always a mistake to assume that Stalinists do not know the truth about the political reality they espouse. If they don’t know the truth (or all of it) one day, they know it the next, and it makes absolutely no difference to them politically For their loyalty is to something other than the truth. And no historical enormity is so great, no personal humiliation or betrayal so extreme, no crime so heinous that it cannot be assimilated into the “ideals” that govern the true Stalinist mind which is impervious alike to documentary evidence and moral discrimination.
Kramer writes that “their loyalty is to something other than the truth.” That is certainly the case, and that “something other” is party above all. To them, the party represents not only a “higher truth,” and is not only their livelihood, it is also their lifelong identity. Furthering the party is the greatest good possible, so why let mere facts get in the way?