Hillary is “writing” a new book!
I wonder how you get to be the ghost writer on that project. If it was me, I would make it a five-and-dime paperback; full of intrigue, villainy, espionage, and sex; the kind of book you stash deep in a desk drawer and read when you are alone, preferably with a glass of wine from a box.
I suppose, glancing at the preview for the book – “rage, sexism, exhilarating highs and infuriating lows, stranger-than-fiction twists, Russian interference, and an opponent who broke all the rules” – a five-and-dimer is what it will be with or without my input.
Yes, news of Hillary’s latest book was announced more than a week ago, but it was on my mind this week. It was on my mind as 1,000 representatives from 49 states (Dear Delaware, What the f*ck?) met in Chicago for the Democratic Socialists of America national convention, while the mainstream media debated whether the number of Emmy nominations “This Is Us” received was sexist, racist, or, perhaps, offensive to the LGBTQ community.
The question is why, other than a Napoleonic return in 2020, would Hillary “write” a book? She certainly doesn’t need the money. If I were Hillary, I would be on a yacht in the Mediterranean with Huma Abedin rubbing expensive oils into my shoulders. But the Clintons seem to have this problem where they cannot just go away. They are like someone who robbed a bank, apparently got away with it, then continued to do their banking at that branch.
The problem is, in the evolutionary progression of tolerance, equality, and economy, the ideological positions the Clintons represent have been passed by history.
When Bill Clinton first began his run for President, late in 1991, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) was in its infancy; newly founded, with six members. The War on Drugs was just ramping up and the Soviet Union had not yet collapsed; it would be a decade before the War on Terrorism would begin. The earliest stages of negotiation for NAFTA had only just taken place and none but the most astute and outspoken economists were warning of the eventual results of financial industry deregulation.
In this political climate, the Clintons staked the ideological flag of the so-called “New Left” firmly to the “right” of Ronald Reagan.
But, by 2016, the Occupy generation was beginning to reach maturity. The War on Drugs, War on Terrorism, and trade deals like NAFTA were so thoroughly discredited that, if not for the horrific impacts, they would almost be satire.
The Clintons, stuck in a mentality and an ideological system which served them so well in the 90s, have had trouble with this new climate, particularly since they helped to construct so many of the now-discredited systems. Worse, they found that they no longer held an ironclad grip on public opinion through control of the increasingly irrelevant mainstream media.
It seemed – like when Bill, campaigning for Hillary, proclaimed “I’ll tell you another story about a place where Black Lives Matter – Africa.” – that they themselves were unaware of what wasn’t working, and why. It was almost sad at times to watch the Clintons toddle around with their outdated approach; the “New Left” now the old “left.”
The reality is that the CPC is now the largest caucus within the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders is, statistically, the most popular politician in the country, and the Democratic Socialists of America add over 1,000 new members every month. Terms like inequality, socialism, oligarchy, and revolution have entered the public lexicon.
Not only is the new “left” not “right” of Ronald Reagan, it is probably “left” of Bernie Sanders. And it doesn’t give a shit whether or not Hillary comes out of the woods for another Weekend at Bernie’s.
Quote of the Week: