| Editor's Note: Jonah will be back with your favorite "news"letter next week. In the meantime, we editorial lackeys thought you'd enjoy this instant-classic G-File from May 28 on Hillary and Bill's never-ending lies. Dear Reader (those of you who are left, that is), Don't worry, I'm not going to start out with another rant about Trump -- I know folks are getting tired about that. (Though I will note that they said if I didn't support the party nominee, giant pythons would start slithering up through toilet holes to bite off our penises -- and they were right!) Instead, I'll start with a rant about Clinton. I've been thinking ("Evidence, sir? Show me your evidence." -- The Couch). I think Clinton needs to become a verb. But first, the sort of lexicological rambling discursion few readers have been waiting for! The English language is full of words that were inspired by people. The following (awful) paragraph contains well more than a dozen words inspired by people. Can you spot them? Female chauvinists pushing for the mainstreaming of Rubenesque women into pop-culture have an almost sadistic desire to celebrate Lena Dunham's relentless nudity (though some masochistic Casanovas may stroke their sideburns lasciviously at the prospect). But I'm no pompadoured martinet of the comstocks or cultural McCarthyites, arguing that "artistic" speech be bowdlerized. I will not give in to Orwellian zeal nor enlist in some Luddite lynch mob hell-bent on stopping the wattage wasted on such fare. Better to pursue a more Machiavellian strategy of boycotting until she dons a cardigan or at least a leotard. I'll give you a few hints: "Chauvinism" -- an extreme belief in the superiority of your nation, your gender, etc. -- was named after Nicholas Chauvin, a soldier in Napoleon's army, who was a zealous partisan for his leader. Masochism -- taking pleasure, usually sexually, in being hurt or abused -- is derived from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, an Austrian novelist who wrote about such things. This is in contrast to "sadism" -- inspired by the Marquis de Sade and his love of cruelty for its own sake. He was known to invite people to his home to screen Caddyshack but when the guests got there, they were forced to watch Caddyshack II. Anyway, so where was I? Oh, right. 'To Clinton' We need to make "Clintoning" a thing. (I'd argue the same for Trump, but he brilliantly picked a last name that already means something. If I had his last name, every time I got into a whose-business-card-is-better contest -- which is actually never -- I'd slap mine down and shout, "That's the Trump card, bitches.") The first problem is there are two Clintons. Back when it was really just Bubba out there, the term would be unavoidably sexual. I'm reminded of Michael Kinsley's response when the Clinton White House was insisting Bill was simply Monica Lewinsky's mentor. It went something like, "Yeah, right. I'm sure he mentored her senseless." I don't mean to be unduly harsh -- just duly harsh -- but Hillary makes any of the limerick-quality double entendres unworkable. That's particularly unfortunate because Rodham, her maiden name, is particularly well-suited for such associations. "Jeffrey Epstein's plane was like a Caligulan entourage of Rodhamanites." Appetite All the Way Down The amazing thing about Hillary and Bill Clinton is that they are united by no central idea, no governing philosophy that doesn't -- upon close inspection -- boil down to the idea that they should be in charge. Yes, I know. That's not what they would say. They would argue that with the right experts in charge, the government can do wonderful things to help people. But what the government should do is constantly changing, according to both of them. Bill once declared, "The Era of Big Government is over." He didn't mean it. He certainly didn't want it to be true. He just said it because that's what he does: He says what he needs to say. I don't approvingly quote Jesse Jackson all that often (though I do find myself saying, "Keep hope alive," a lot these days), but I think he had it right when he said Bill had no core beliefs, he was all appetite. Hillary, in her own way, strikes me as even worse in this regard. Can you name a single substantial policy that she hasn't flipped on -- or wouldn't change -- if it were in her political self-interest? Gay marriage? Free trade? Illegal immigration? Strip away all of the political posturing and positioning, and their "philosophy" that government run by experts can do wonderful things should really be translated as "government run by us." Clinton's defenders argue that her changing policy approaches are just signs of her "pragmatism." And don't worry, I won't rant about pragmatism again, either. But liberal pragmatism begins and ends from a single first principle: Liberals must be in power to decide what is "pragmatic." And when conservatives are in charge, the only form of acceptable pragmatism is . . . compromising with liberals. That is why both Clintons are such unapologetic liars. Pragmatism bills itself as being beyond ideology and "labels." Well, if you don't feel bound to any objective ideological or even ontological criteria -- labels, after all, are the words we use to describe reality -- why not lie? Why not wax philosophic about the meaning of "is"? If attaining and wielding power is your only benchmark, the ethical imperative of telling the truth is no imperative at all. It's just another false ideological construct . . . Read the whole thing here. | 
Comments
Post a Comment