That was the title of Hillary Rodham’s senior thesis back in her Wellesley College days, a reference to the work of Saul Alinsky, the Frankfurt School‘s most noxious avatar and a man of still-outsized influence today, having intellectually (if you can call it that) bequeathed us not only the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua but Barack Hussein Obama, both spawned in the petri dish of Alinsky’s Chicago. It was a theme she returned to yesterday, on the occasion of the “relaunch” of her creaky “candidacy” for the Democrat presidential nomination next year. Fight, fight, fight — the Democrats, it seems, always want to fight. But who are they fighting for? And who are they really fighting?
The short answer is: they’re not fighting at all. Since LBJ, the Pansy Party never met a war it wanted to fight to win, only a war it could use for domestic political advantage in its eternal quest for personal enrichment and societal destabilization. Reagan ended the Cold War with a decisive victory over the Soviet Union (which collapsed in defeat), but the Democrats have managed to resuscitate it via the “reset” button. Bill Clinton was content to make bellicose noises, and fire off a few missiles in the general direction of the Middle East during Saddam Hussein’s moments in the desert sun, and let bin Laden escape when his lawyers overruled his military men. The Democrat defeatist disease even infected two Republican presidents, Bush pere et fils, both of whom knew how to pick a fight in “Iraq” but neither of whom knew how to properly end it.
Rule of thumb: the war is over when the other side stops shooting.
Ah, but rhetorically, it’s a different story over on the increasingly deracinated, psychotic Left. Since they live in a pan-sexual academic world of signs and portents and nuances and microagressions, everything is a threat, and therefore the only proper response is to “fight.” Their candidates rage against the inequities of the vast conspiracy against special snowflakes that is the real world, and promise “safe spaces” for their precious charges — even though Democrats have been in the White House every year since 1993, with the exception of the Bush II eight-year interregnum. If they could run against themselves, they would and, practically speaking, they do. Because, you see, There Is Only the Fight.
Consider Hillary!’s latest blather, delivered in the”pleasant little police state” of Roosevelt Island (formerly Welfare Island, formerly Blackwell’s Island) in the middle of the East River, nicely eviscerated in this piece by Olivia Nuzzi at the Daily Beast:
Clinton formally declared her candidacy for the Democratic nomination almost exactly a month ago, in April, with a 2:15 video. “Everyday Americans need a champion,” she said then. “And I wanna be that champion.”
Since that time, Clinton has not been heard from much as she has traveled around, talking to some voters and ignoring questions from the media and trying to seem as normal as possible despite being anything but. Saturday’s event was designed to highlight her champion-ness by contrasting her with the New Deal Democrat, whose Four Freedoms she has attempted to mimic with her own “Four Fights,” the economy, families, campaign finance and national security.
In a royal blue blazer and glowing blonde hair, Clinton took to the stage to deliver her Four Fights speech. At times she sounded robotic, like the pol who won’t take a position without poll testing it as she has been accused at others some humanity crept through. All the while, though, it was hard to shake the feeling that she was already president—of this island.
Clinton borrowed from Elizabeth Warren and her primary competitor Bernie Sanders in her tough-talk about no-good corporations and the need for campaign finance reform. About the latter, she said, “If necessary, I will support a Constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.”
Well, of course she would, since that decision was in direct response to a documentary about her. (See above video.) There’s nothing better to bring out the fight in a Clinton than to be personally attacked, have the case go all the way to the Supreme Court — and lose.
So now we have the spectacle of a woman of not only no accomplishment but negative accomplishment (Benghazi, Libya, Russia), who by rights probably ought to be jail, running what to the Leftist media is a credible campaign for the presidency. In a sense, she is the anti-Barack Obama, a candidate about whom we knew (and still know) almost next to nothing when he suddenly appeared in the Oval Office. By contrast, we already know far too much about Hillary Rodham Clinton, and perhaps that is the problem. After a while, it all blurs: Whitewater, Travelgate, the missing FBI files, Vince Foster, Charlie Trie, Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood, the Clinton Foundation, the missing State Department emails, etc., etc. And not only does it blur, but it creates in the public’s mind a perverse sense of her innocence — after all, if there was something there, wouldn’t she have been arrested and brought low by now? Instead, she keeps soaring, a lead balloon defying the laws of the United States and of gravity.
In short, the more she gets away with the more she can get away with. How do you deal with someone like this? Her bromide-fueled swag bag of giveaway goodies harkens back to FDR’s own airy-fairy “Four Freedoms” Speech of 1941 — not the first two, which have now fallen into Leftist disfavor (freedom of speech and freedom of religion), but the last two:
How does a government guarantee “freedom from want” or “freedom from fear” — “everywhere in the world,” as Roosevelt repeatedly notes — without becoming a tyrannical dictatorship? FDR’s speech was rendered meaningless eleven months later when the Empire of Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor; despite his utopian anti-constitutionalism, Roosevelt was still enough of a patriot to effectively rouse and lead the nation to war and to a crushing victory over the Japanese and the Germans. It is impossible to imagine, say, Obama doing anything remotely similar.
Nor, for all her nasty disposition and truculent temperament, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She’s interested in “campaign finance reform” because (like McCain) it was her ox that was gored by the Citizens United decision. She’s “fighting” for “national security” because it was on her watch that the world went to hell in a handcart. She “fighting” for the economy, even though it was under the Obama presidency that the country has spent seven years in misery and penury, with only the crony capitalists like the Clintons living high on the hog. And she’s “fighting” for families because it is her political party whose policies have been at the heart of the destruction of the American nuclear family. Besides, her own family — which has been looting treasuries around the globe in the name of its “charity” — is doing just fine, thanks.
“There is only the fight.” And she means it. The problem is, the only thing Hillary Clinton thinks worth fighting for is herself.