Politics, et Cetera

A publication from The Political Forum, LLC

[print-me target=”body”]

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

They Said It:

If colonialism was a crime, the greatest offence was in its undoing when fragile native cultures, embryonic modern societies, and minority peoples ill-provided to protect themselves, were everywhere abandoned into the hands of political leaders equipped with the powerful machine of the modern state. The brutalities of Idi Amin have been sufficiently spectacular to attract the persistent attention of Western media. But Idi Amin is fully justified in his complaint that the Western media are unfair to him: from Algeria to Zanzibar, the peoples of Africa are ruled by autocrats whose unfettered control over the machinery of the state allows them to indulge every vice and every excess of virtue: in one country the ruler may be an alcoholic, in another he may forbid alcoholic drink to all, because lie deems it irreligious; in one country, the ruler may openly claim for himself any woman or boy that meets his fancy, in another he may have adulterers executed; in one country the most useless of luxuries may be freely imported while there is no foreign currency with which to buy essential medicines, in another the ruler may proclaim that even books may not be imported, although foreign currency is accumulating uselessly in foreign bank deposits. Above all, there is the systematic use of the instruments of defense and order for internal oppression, and the appropriation of public wealth on a fantastic scale. When the American Vice-President was forced to resign because he had accepted bribes, or what were deemed to be bribes, there was amazement at the size of the sums involved: in the Third World not even a junior minister could be purchased for so little. The logic whereby public power may easily generate private wealth is universal, and the enrichment of the powerful is a pervasive phenomenon found all over the world. But there is a difference in the workings of this logic in the new states, and not merely of scale: it is not an ancillary phenomenon but rather the essential process of governance for those in control, and it is not moderated by the need for discretion. The overt corruption commonly found in the new states reveals the full consequences of the absence of political community. Only from the latter can effective norms arise, norms felt in the consciousness of each citizen. Without political community there can be no effective norms, and without the norms that arise quite naturally from the values and beliefs of the community, the state is no more than a machine. 

Edward Luttwak, Coup d’Etat:  A Practical Handbook, Preface to the 1979 Edition.



This will come as a surprise to none of you, but we’re pretty sure that the brilliant intellectuals of the last century or so have had it completely backward when it comes to the West and its role in the world.  As we watch the “migrant” crisis in Europe devolve into a tragedy, we can’t help but think that it didn’t have to be this way.  Let is explain:

The American mainstream media has been beside itself ever since Donald Trump launched his presidential campaign, making immigration his central issue.  And while Trump clearly has some problems (see an entire summer’s worth of columns here for details), he is undoubtedly right when he says that immigration is a fundamentally defining matter today – and not just in the United States, but throughout the West.  Moreover, he is correct when he notes that the media and their Democratic allies are too concerned with pointing fingers and accusing everyone who ponder the immigration issue of being a racist to have noticed that the entirety of the West appears, at present, to be under siege by refugees, evacuees, and all other sorts of migrants fleeing the developing world for better and safer lives in Europe, Canada, and the United States.  And since they’re too busy to notice the crisis, they’ve also been too busy to give it any thought, much less to ponder why it might be happening.

Allow us to help.

For roughly a century, since World War I at least, Western nations have been wringing their hands, pondering the great evil they inflicted on the rest of the world through “colonialism.”  The collapse of the traditional colonial powers after and between the World Wars invigorated the Marxist worldview that pinned all the world’s problems on capitalist imperialism.  Over the course of the Twentieth century, therefore, erstwhile colonial western powers not only ran screaming from their former colonies, but did everything in their power to ensure that those former colonies rejected as much of the Western heritage they might otherwise have been bequeathed.  As David Pryce-Jones put it in a 2008 essay for The New Criterion:

Intellectuals in Europe went much further, pleading guilty to all the accusations leveled against them by Third World nationalists.  They and their predecessors had always been constant and enthusiastic critics of empire, and now were thrilled to have their diatribes against their own countries thrown back at them, as it were by clever students and disciples.  Violence committed by the ruled against the rulers won their applause.  This attitude of opposition starts with the delight so widely expressed in Britain over the loss of the American colonies — even the conservative-minded Edmund Burke supported the colonists.  Innumerable nineteenth-and twentieth-century writers treated whatever reflected badly on the imperial power as a running scandal – – the Indian mutiny, the Governor Eyre episode in Jamaica, Denshawi in Egypt, Amritsar, the Arab revolts in Mesopotamia and Palestine, partition in India, and so on.  Following Marxism-Leninism, leftists everywhere took it for granted that imperialism was the ultimate by-product of capitalism, to be extirpated accordingly in the glorious and imminent world revolution.  Bernard Shaw and the Fabians, Sir Roger Casement, J. A. Hobson, Bloomsbury and the New Statesman, Arnold Toynbee, and other opinion-makers all over Europe acquired reputations as they savaged not just the British but the Belgians in the Congo, the Dutch in Indonesia, the French in the Maghreb or Indochina.  Jean-Paul Sartre and Frantz Fanon recommended the murdering of Frenchmen as a measure that Arabs owed themselves if they were to be free.

The outcome of this long-drawn anti-imperial campaigning has worked its way into today’s truism — taught in classrooms everywhere — that Europeans were exclusively vicious oppressors while those they ruled are exclusively virtuous victims.  This incarnation of the myth of the Noble Savage overlooks, or carefully ignores, that imperialism brought far-flung peoples into contact with European languages, law, and culture, a necessary prerequisite if East and West were to meet on equal terms . . .

The only catch here is that no one ever bothered to tell any of this to the poor, allegedly oppressed indigenous peoples in the colonies.  They never got the message.  Or if they did, they disregarded it as just so much pabulum.  And so they have spent the entire post-colonial period running the entire process in reverse:  leaving Asia, Africa, and Latin America for the West, for their former colonial “masters” and for systems of government that ensure opportunity and equality under the law.

The current migrant crisis is, of course, the result of political, religious, and economic turmoil throughout the developing world.  The global Left would have you believe that this turmoil, like all other turmoil from time immemorial, is the result of Western meddling.  If George Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, then ISIS would never have been born.  If every American president since Nixon hadn’t supported the military-government in Egypt, then the Arab Spring would have been more successful and the Syrian civil war would be long over.  If the American and British intelligence services hadn’t overthrown Mohammed Mosaddegh in 1953, then the Iranian Mullahs wouldn’t be chanting “Death to America!” as they wage terrorist wars through the Middle East.  If the Brits hadn’t put the House of Saud in charge of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, then the sectarian war between the Sunnis and the Shiites wouldn’t be raging as violently today.  If Teddy Roosevelt hadn’t stolen Panama from Colombia, then Latin America would be healthy, wealthy, and wise today.  Etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Now, one needn’t be a supporter of every American or Western foray into the Middle East to understand that this is all a giant load of hooey.  The Middle East would be a mess without Western involvement and, indeed, was a mess before Western involvement and was less of a mess during Western involvement.  Latin America is poor, backward, and corrupt for the same reason that Africa is poor, backward, and corrupt:  because its elites were educated in the West by self-loathing Westerners and then took home the worst of the West’s anti-colonial Marxist ideas, in the process turning their countries into perpetual basket cases.

We would argue, in fact, that the nations and peoples of the developing world – the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, Africa – would all be better off if they had MORE, rather than less non-Marxist, pro-colonialist, pro-capitalist Western influence.  As we’ve noted countless times before in these pages, you don’t need to be a PhD in sociology to see what the most successful countries in every part of the world – Great Britain, Canada, the United States, India, Hong Kong, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand – have in common.  With the exception of Great Britain, all were colonies, British colonies to be precise.  And all have benefitted tremendously from their colonial experiences.

Just over seven years ago, in a piece on a similar subject, we suggested that the best thing that could ever possibly happen to the developing world – Africa, in that case – would be for the West to rediscover its self-confidence and agree to share that confidence with the so-called global community.  We put it this way:

Over the past several years, we are aware of only three earnest suggestions/efforts to deal with the manifold evils that haunt Africa.  And by coincidence, they are all essentially the same suggestion, from three different sources. And all deal directly with a politically taboo subject

The first suggestion came from a onetime colleague of ours, who still reads this publication and with whom we are still friends, and who suggested many years ago, that the only way to save Africa and Africans from themselves would be to re-colonize the continent.  If we recall correctly, this suggestion came in the wake of the Rwandan genocide, which left upwards of 500,000 men, women, and children dead.

The second suggestion came a few years later and was made in a far more public forum by then-editor of National Review Online (and current syndicated columnist and New York Times best-selling author) Jonah Goldberg, who made precisely the same pitch as our erstwhile colleague. To wit:

I think it’s time we revisited the notion of a new kind of Colonialism – though we shouldn’t call it that.  I don’t mean ripping off poor countries.  I don’t mean setting tribes against one another and paying off corrupt “leaders” to keep down unrest.  I mean going in – guns blazing if necessary – for truth and justice.  I am quite serious about this.  The United States should mount a serious effort to bring civilization (yes, “Civilization”) to those parts of Africa that are in Hobbesian despair.  We should enlist any nation, institution or organization – especially multinational corporations and evangelical churches as well as average African citizens – interested in permanently helping Africa join the 21st century.  This might mean that Harvard would have to cut back on courses about transgender construction workers.  And it might mean that some churches would have to spend more time feeding starving people than pronouncing on American presidential candidates.

We should spend billions upon billions doing it.  We should put American troops in harm’s way.  We should not be surprised that Americans will die doing the right thing.  We should not be squeamish, either, about the fact that (mostly white) Americans will kill some black Africans in the process.  Yes, this would be a display of arrogance of historic proportions, even a crusade.  But it wouldn’t be a military one.  On one hand, this cannot be merely an armed invasion, but on the other hand it must not be some UN initiative which just shuffles poverty around.  This would be America and its allies doing right as we see it.

Yes, this would seem imperial, for there would certainly be wars declared against us.  French writers would break their pencils in defiance of the American Empire.  Kofi Annan would need a pacemaker.  Pat Buchanan would move to Canada.  But being imperial is not necessarily a bad thing.  The British Empire decided unilaterally that the global practice of slavery was a crime against God and man, and they set out to stop it.  They didn’t care about the “sovereignty” of other nations when it came to an evil institution.  They didn’t care about the “rule of international law,” they made law with the barrel of a cannon.

Allow us to make a prediction regarding the current “migrant” crisis:  It will be resolved one of two ways.  Either the West will recolonize the developing world, giving its people a serious opportunity to escape the tribalism and dysfunction of their current regimes, or the developing world will colonize the West, pushing enough of its people to leave their homeland in the hope of finding a better life – or life at all – that they eventually overwhelm the already demoralized and weak cultural institutions of the West, thus undermining and forcing the abandonment of mankind’s greatest political, economic, and cultural achievement.

Given the ongoing demographic suicide in most of the nations of the West, the aforementioned rejection of the West’s achievements by its elites, and the absolute unwillingness of Western nations to compel new immigrants to leave the worst of their old culture behind in favor of the best of their new culture, we suspect that, in the end, it won’t even be close – at least in Europe.  We have a little more hope for the United States and maybe Canada.  But even that hope is largely contingent on the country class’s success over the next few election cycles in reshaping the composition and agenda of the ruling class.

In the meantime, as you read statistics like the following, which was tweeted the other day by the International Spectator – “There are now more Syrians who are displaced or refugees than there are Syrians who’ve remained in their homes” – remember that there is really only one solution to these problems.  Remember as well that the ruling classes in the West are adamant about moving as far away from that solution as possible.

Plan accordingly.



Back in 2012, you may recall, the Supreme Court ruled, in a somewhat bizarre and unprecedented fashion, that the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) was, in fact, constitutionally compliant and that its “mandate” was not a mandate at all, but a tax.  After the decision, a number of conservatives lashed out at the man who wrote the majority opinion and who also provided the fifth and deciding vote in upholding the law, Chief Justice John Roberts.

The overwhelming majority of the commentary focused either on the twisted and inconsistent nature of Roberts’ reasoning or on Roberts’ betrayal of his purportedly conservative principles.  Some of it went a step further, accusing Roberts of succumbing to public pressure and compromising constitutional principles in order to preserve his legacy or to silence media critics who had spent the weeks and months leading up to the ruling warning the Court not to mess with Obama’s crowning achievement.

On the far end of the right-wing spectrum, however, some critics pushed their denunciations even further, suggesting that Roberts was not of sound mind and body, not mentally fit to have issued the ruling.  Roberts, you see, has had a few episodes of fainting and seizures and, as a result, is treated with a prescription medication for epilepsy.  And like all medications, those that Roberts takes may have some possible side-effects, which formed the basis of the attack on the Chief Justice.  Michael Savage, the talk-radio host and notorious conspiracy theorist, framed his attack as follows:

Let’s talk about Roberts.  I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to.  It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures.  Therefore he has been on medication.  Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems.  And if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying.

Several years earlier, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, similar arguments had been made on the right and left-wing fringes about Bill’s Attorney General, Janet Reno.  Reno, you may recall, had ordered the assault on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, which resulted in 76 men, women, and children being burned to death.  Reno had also ordered the pre-dawn raid by machine-gun toting agents on the home of relatives of Elian Gonzales, the Cuban boy who had left his home for the United States but whose mother had drown during the perilous crossing.

Janet Reno suffered from Parkinson’s disease and, naturally, took medication to control its symptoms and halt its progress.  After the Elian Gonzales affair, some fringe commentators noted that the side effects of the medication included “psychotic episodes including delusions, hallucinations, and paranoid ideation . . . . confusion, agitation, dizziness, somnolence, dream abnormalities including nightmares, insomnia, paresthesia, headache, depression with or without development of suicidal tendencies, dementia.”  As with Roberts, those who opposed Reno’s actions sought to discredit them – and her – suggesting that she was not mentally fit to make such decisions.  She was, they argued, a threat to nation.

In both these cases, political critics attacked those whom they disliked and whose actions they resented based on the hypothetical possibility that they might, in theory, have been among a tiny percentage of people who could, possibly, maybe have had an adverse reaction to medications that they were, according to press reports, allegedly taking.  And as you may have guessed, all of the modifiers and caveats are included here because the accusations are ludicrous.  To criticize a public official is one thing; to criticize a public official based on nothing more than the incredibly rare theoretical possibility of a side-effect of medication is something else altogether.  It is to engage in pure fantasy, wild and irresponsible speculation, specifically designed to smear and belittle political adversaries based on nothing even resembling evidence.

Now, that’s not to say that public officials can’t or shouldn’t be called out for their deficiencies – even mental deficiencies.  It’s just to say that if you’re going to say that someone is cognitively slowed or forgetful, delusional or enfeebled, it might be a good idea to have some EVIDENCE of this, rather than mere and wild speculation.

All of which brings us to Hillary Clinton.

As a general rule, when Hillary’s homebrew email scandal is mentioned, it is in one of two contexts.  Either Hillary is a dirty, rotten liar who broke the rules to suit her own peculiarities, or she is a dirty, rotten liar who broke the rules to suit her own peculiarities AND in the process, compromised national security.  For Republicans, this scandal has been a half-godsend.  Hillary’s approval rating with the public has cratered.  Most voters – Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats – don’t trust her.  They think she’s a liar.  They think she behaves as if the rules that apply to everyone else don’t really apply to her.

So why only a half-godsend?  Well, this is nothing new, frankly.  No one anywhere has ever thought of the woman as a paragon of virtue.  The renowned columnist William Safire declared that Hillary is a “congenital liar” – almost TWENTY years ago.  Moreover, according to the pollsters, the American people have already decided that they will, in fact, elect a president whom they don’t trust.  They did so once before.  And it just so happens that that guy shares a last name with Hillary.  The Clintons are dirty, rotten liars, you say?  Who didn’t know?

As far as we’re concerned, the “news” in the Hillary Clinton email server scandal is just how completely hopeless, pathetic, spoiled, and perhaps disorientated the “inevitable” future president is.  And unlike the peripheral commentators who attacked Reno and Roberts, we actually have proof of our charges – courtesy of Mrs. Clinton herownself.

Last week – thanks to the tireless efforts of our friends at Judicial Watch, among others – the State Department released another batch of emails from Hillary’s private server.  And while most reporters and analysts focused on the “classified” bits, we and a handful of others were more interested in the mundane, day-to-day aspects of the wannabe president’s life.  Sure, we think it’s important to know whom and what Hillary Clinton placed in harm’s way by her recklessness.  But we also think it’s important to know how the richest “public servant” in history handles everyday life.  Fortunately, Stephen Miller, writing at National Review Online, provides a helpful summary:

If I were to approach a person on the street and list off traits like “doesn’t drive,” “needs food prepared,” “needs help with the remote control,” “needs people to bring her beverages,” “has trouble remembering things,” and “doesn’t pay her own bills” about someone anonymously, he wouldn’t think I was referring to a current presidential front-runner in the year 2015.  He would think I was referring to his poor nana, whom he had to place in a home because she wouldn’t stop yelling at the lamp and was at risk of accidentally microwaving her dentures.

But, as we now know courtesy of the ongoing FOIA e-mail dump, all of these traits accurately describe the current Democratic front-runner and (as she is always eager to remind us) doting grandmother, Hillary Clinton.  Amidst the e-mail revelations, an alarming pattern is developing about Clinton’s personal dependency on those inside her inner bubble.  She isn’t just delegating important tasks to underlings, as any executive might; these aren’t urgent matters of national security, such as aides’ fetching satellite intelligence or the latest reports relevant to a managing executive.  Rather, it appears that Hillary is either helpless or unwilling to perform even the most menial and trivial of daily tasks.  In a recently released e-mail from January 3, 2010, she personally messaged an assistant, wishing her a Happy New Year, and then offered a demand list to start the year off:

I’d like to work with you to prepare a menu for Jason.  Also does he give me a monthly bill for the food he buys and prepares for me?  Could you or he buy skim milk for me to have for my tea?  Also, pls remind me to bring more tea cups from home . . . Can you give me times for two TV shows: Parks and Recreation and The Good Wife?

Yes, this is the delightful paradox that is Hillary: a woman who claims she will fight for the shrinking middle class but who also happens to employ a personal chef (or Visiting Angel) that she’s not even sure she pays.  A candidate who Understands People Like You but apparently isn’t familiar enough with the strange Google machine to look up television listings (I found it in one click after searching “The Good Wife times” and going to the official CBS homepage).  A person who was actually in the habit of e-mailing her drink orders to aides at the State Department: “Pls call Sarah and ask her if she can get me some iced tea.”

Ponder that one again for a moment: She e-mailed one person to call yet another person with an order to bring her a beverage.  A normal person, incapacitated and laid out in a hospital bed, can usually get beverage service in fewer steps than what Hillary was requesting.

Those in the press who have addressed the fact that Hillary Clinton’s emails are rife with conversations with her old friends and known miscreant Sidney Blumenthal have again generally done so in one of two contexts.  They note either that Hillary’s emails to Blumenthal demonstrate the national security implications of the private server, given that some of these emails were released a few years ago by the hacker “Gucifer,” or they mention that Blumenthal is such a low-life that the Obama administration actually forbade Hillary from hiring him as a government employee while she was at State.  Once again, though, the content of the email between Hillary and Sycophantic Sid have largely been overlooked.  They shouldn’t be.

The number of emails sent between Hillary and Blumenthal is far more than the Clinton campaign has previously let on.  As the Wall Street Journal notes, Hillary insisted that she never solicited any emails from Blumenthal, yet their exchanges number in the hundreds, and “Mrs. Clinton tells the specialist in political smears to ‘keep ’em coming’ and that ‘Bill’ — presumably her husband — had dubbed them ‘brilliant!’”  And what, exactly, was so brilliant?  Seth Mandel fills us in:

One email released this week involves two top figures in Clintonworld: David Brock and Sidney Blumenthal. . . .

The message is, in its entirety, utter lunacy.  On Oct. 24, 2010, Blumenthal sent Clinton a note from Brock titled: “Memo on Impeaching Clarence Thomas.”  It concentrated on the claims by one woman of having been romantically involved with the Supreme Court justice prior to his confirmation . . . .

Why was the sitting secretary of state reading a memo on impeaching a Supreme Court justice — for a decades-old affair, no less?  There is no good answer, but it’s far from the only strange and conspiratorial nonsense to show up in Hillary’s emails.

Blumenthal’s unreliability bothered other Democrats.  The New York Times reports that some Clinton aides “viewed him suspiciously for his conspiratorial bent; some nicknamed him ‘G.K.,’ for grassy knoll” — as in the knoll at the center of endless Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. . . .

In one email, Blumenthal told Hillary that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is stage managing U.S. Jewish organizations (and neocons, and the religious right, and whomever else he can muster) against the administration.  AIPAC itself has become an organ of the Israeli right, specifically Likud.”

The idea that American Jews were being controlled by a foreign capital was a recurring theme for “Sid Vicious.”  In November 2010, he wrote that Malcolm Hoenlein, the head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, “has been raising money hand over fist for the Republicans through [then-Rep.] Eric Cantor, now his vehicle.  The donors are many of the same US donors to Bibi and Likud. Implications obvious.”

Blumenthal also sent Clinton analyses on Iran by the long-discredited conspiracy theorist Gary Sick, who rose to fame with a sloppy and false book claiming that Ronald Reagan had arranged for the Iranian hostage crisis to drag on until he’d won the 1980 election.

Sick’s analyses had their own strangeness: He claimed in 2010 that those who took a tough line on Iran were just “dying to repeat Iraq,” and that the Iraqi people had suffered under anti-Saddam sanctions because of “a vindictive United States.”

Clinton sought Blumenthal’s take on domestic politics, too — and it was just as odd.  House Speaker John Boehner, he wrote, is “despised” by the conservative base because “He is louche, alcoholic, lazy, and without any commitment to any principle.”

Unfortunately, it gets worse.  The Washington Free Beacon also sorted through the newly released emails and found an awkward pattern of memory issues.  To wit:

Emails released by the State Department on Monday raise troubling questions about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her ability to lead the country and make it great again.  Clinton, who will celebrate her 68th birthday next month, has been known to make embarrassing memory-related gaffes, and had trouble remembering the things she said and did as secretary of state, the emails show.

In an email dated November 13, 2010, Hillary asked a State Department aide whether she gave an interview to a certain Lebanese newspaper, apparently after reading about it in her daily press briefing.  In fact, the interview occurred just three days earlier, on November 10. . . .

Months earlier, Hillary emailed another aide to express concern about a Tavis Smiley column in USA Today.  The aide responds that Hillary actually discussed the issue in question during a recent sit-down interview with Smiley, but Hillary does not seem to remember the discussion at all.

Now, we think it is worth noting here that Hillary also suffered a traumatic brain injury just two-and-a-half years ago, immediately after she left the Obama administration, which is to say after the memory slips detailed above.  At the time of her injury, the Daily Beast reported that Mrs. Clinton “fainted, fell and banged her head,” suffering a subdural hematoma.  CNN added that while Mrs. Clinton didn’t need surgery, she was “treated with blood thinners. . . at a New York hospital to help dissolve a blood clot in her head.”  She has since had occasional public memory-related issues and made simple memory-related gaffes – such as her declaration in a 2014 speech that Alexis de Tocqueville roamed the American countryside during the 1930s.

Obviously, taken by themselves, none of the things revealed by Hillary Clinton’s latest email dump disqualifies her from being president.  Taken together, though, they do tend to paint a rather disturbing picture.  What we have here is a woman who is completely out of touch with the real world.  She doesn’t know how to drive or grocery shop.  She thinks that she and Bill are, despite a fortune topping $100 million, just normal folk.  She is pampered like royalty, with “servants” – also known as government employees – catering to her every whim.  She continues to seek the counsel of and advice from a widely despised conspiracy nut whose antics were too flamboyant even for the Obama administration.  And she has some rather notable memory issues.  All of this is plainly and inarguably evident in the small handful of NON-PERSONAL emails that the Clinton minders DID NOT DELETE and has thus been released to the public.  One can only wonder what sort of things might have been contained in the files that Cheryl Mills and the like decided to destroy, so that they’d never be seen by outside eyes.

As we’ve said countless times before, our job here is not to offer advice to politicians.  And even if it were, none of them listen to us anyway.  Still, if we were advising the Republicans vying for the chance to run against Hillary in 14 months or Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, we would tell them to skip the national security and the character issues raised by Hillary’s email scandal.  After all, those investigations are underway already, and like all such inquiries, are subject to the pseudo-Newtonian laws of political motion – which is to say that once they’ve started in motion, they tend to stay in motion.

Rather, we would advise any and all Hillary adversaries to focus on her fitness for the job.  There’s a reason, after all, that commentators on the Right have taken to calling her the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua.  Camille Paglia, one of the last, great independent-minded feminists in the American academy, recently wrote that, “Most of the American electorate has probably been ready for a woman president for some time. But that woman must have the right array of qualities and ideally have risen to prominence through her own talents and not . . . through her marriage to a powerful man.”  Ideally, that woman would also not be an indulged and isolated incompetent trying desperately to conceal her incapacity to wield power cogently.  Less-than-ideally, at least we wouldn’t all know it before we elect her.

Copyright 2015. The Political Forum. 8563 Senedo Road, Mt. Jackson, Virginia 22842, tel. 402-261-3175, fax 402-261-3175. All rights reserved. Information contained herein is based on data obtained from recognized services, issuer reports or communications, or other sources believed to be reliable. However, such information has not been verified by us, and we do not make any representations as to its accuracy or completeness, and we are not responsible for typographical errors. Any statements nonfactual in nature constitute only current opinions which are subject to change without notice.