If you are able to donate $100 or more for our Annual Fund Drive, your donation will be matched by another generous CounterPuncher! These are tough times. Regardless of the political rhetoric bantered about the airwaves, the recession hasn’t ended for most of us. We know that money is tight for many of you. But we also know that tens of thousands of daily readers of CounterPunch depend on us to slice through the smokescreen and tell it like is. Please, donate if you can!
As Hillary Clinton rolls around within the smooth hollowness of the echo chamber of corporately programmed media promoting her disdain for the fibers of the woodlands which are being wasted as paper pulp for her twisted version of “what happened” in the election of 2016, it dawned on me what was the real cause of her (and the DNC’s) self-inflicted electoral failure. It was not Bernie Sanders (even though I suspect he is probably more than willing to believe he and his supporters might owe her an apology).
It was not Donald Trump or any promoted, unsubstantiated Russians. It was not the paltry number of Jill Stein’s supporters. It was not anyone else’s doing.
There is only Hillary Clinton’s history of blatantly devious manipulations and predatory militarism, as Glen Greenwald has pointed out, which is the most likely reason why Clinton’s campaign was met with so much dissatisfaction by the electoral system. This answer, however, is still not getting to the truth of what was the greatest failure of Clinton’s campaign.
Perhaps Clinton, the DNC, and the vast majority of voters are incapable of recognizing the truth. This is understandable because, when you have an electorate who overwhelmingly refuses to see that Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, their running mates, and their parties in general are, in fact, heavily right wing in their actions, there could only be a brief, tiny pool of rapidly evaporating water in Hell when you are sure there was a snowball.
What might have prevented Hillary Clinton’s failure was a recognition. It is the same recognition which is what stimulates the opposition of the Green Party to both the democrats and to the republicans. If Clinton had only listened to the Greens, she would have recognized that she was and is really a republican. Not only that, but she is as far to the right as the majority of republicans would proudly boast of being.
If Clinton had been honest (pausing for laughter and tears), she could have sought the republican nomination. Donald Trump would not have stood a chance. Even as a democrat, Clinton had significant support from many republican operatives. Her inability to be honest and open, coupled with her record of vicious militarism, while surely a hallmark of a democrat, would have also been characteristically appealing to huge (or “Yuge”) numbers of republicans.
Clinton would have enjoyed a great deal of what is delusionally referred to as crossover votes. The numbers of so-called democrat women who would have voted for her if she ran as a republican would have alone been enough to put her in power. I have little doubt that their support (and that of other democrats) for her as an open republican would have been defended with the rational that Clinton ran as a republican because “she had to” in order to ascend to her destiny as the great savior/inspiration.
This argument of “she/he had to” is so central to the democrat voter identity because without the illusion, democrats might have to face the facts of their record of electing republicans in all but name candidates for decades upon decades.
So, the one little move toward honesty which would probably have put Hillary Clinton into the presidency would have meant that she abandon the pretense which is so central to the democrats. The pretense that she and they are not republicans who deliberately pretend to be something else.
The old expression about “honesty is the best policy” is so alien to how the hollow echo chamber works, that Clinton’s lack of credibility is beyond merely typical and her failure resulted because she had no way to be open and honest about who and what she is – even when her history of bloodied debauchery would have been embraced as proof of her devotion by so many republican and democrat partisans if she would have run as a republican. A minor partisan name change was too much to ask for from someone as devious as Clinton.
Trump, for his part within the life-sucking hollowness, is still trying so hard to make Clinton look like she is, by contrast, composed and presidential.
I’m tempted to go into speculating about how the democrats might have manipulated their organization if Clinton had openly embraced her republican self, but I just can’t find any value in kicking a dead Trojan Horse.