The public release, via WikiLeaks, of purloined e-mails and documents related to Hillary Clinton and her campaign has produced starkly different reactions. On the whole, the news media is nonplussed.- Bloomberg
This Bloomberg article makes the case that none of the emails released by WikiLeaks provides evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.
Is suggests that the leaks “may or may not be part of a Russian effort to undermine Clinton.” And it explains the leaks expose “routine political discussion among staff engaged in the constant, necessary balancing of policy, politics and presentation.”
In other words it presents Clinton as a “normal” politician doing the things politicians necessarily do.
The article does admit there is “cause for unease about Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system when she was secretary of state.” It also mentions that the combination of the Clinton family’s foundation work and the presidency might present a conflict of interest, but apparently there is no evidence of that now.
Meanwhile, the article claims to see “pathos” in additional charges leveled at the Clintons. These would include suggestions that Hillary and Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta were involved in the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The article’s conclusion is the most controversial part from our perspective, as follows:
The source fueling the right’s recklessness isn’t stupidity. It’s cowardice. It takes a basic level of character and respect for truth to confront the world as it is rather than concoct fantasies that flatter your ideology, complement your anxieties and excuse your faults.
The idea here is that critics of Clinton are grasping at illusory wrongdoing rather than confronting her on very real policies. This approach is termed a cartoon version of a politician who is “complex” and real “with formidable skills and obvious failings.”
The article ends by making a moral judgment about this sort of attack, terming it a “shabby fraud”among critics who “shrink from the demands of honest politics.”
To defeat Clinton, and the political tradition she embodies, on the merits requires facts, arguments, policies, vision. Credible opponents rise to the task. For cowards, there’s WikiLeaks
But what’s wrong with questioning elements of a politician’s past or personality? Perhaps the problem is bigger than Clinton or any single politician. Politics may be tolerable in small doses but modern democracy provides individuals that, once, elected, will have considerable responsibilities on numerous fronts.
The idea that TV commercials and scripted appearances can provide a good measure of how a politician will act in office seems questionable at best. So this article’s perspective that one should evaluate Clinton based on her policy prescriptions probably will not yield a great deal of useful information.
Beyond that, one must question whether the modern political process provides any credible or valuable results. Seen from a distance, even important politicians are in thrall to money and influences that precede their election and will persist long after they are gone.
Hillary, for instance, seems to be the favorite of the establishment because she can be counted on to escalate military tensions around the world while further entrenching various questionable memes such as global warming – to further expand the reach and control of government.
So the reasons Hillary may win – possibly through voter fraud – have little to do with why people are voting for her. Ultimately, the modern political process likely cannot yield independent elected officials, at all. And one can even argue that politicians only get elected if they are willing to destabilize the societies they live on the way to expanding global government.
It makes more sense to evaluate politicians on the background and personality than on their policies because the policies they must follow already exist and are entrenched. A bad and unbalanced person can certainly do more damage to more people than one who relatively centered and secure.
As Hillary seems personally violent, mentally unhinged and physically ailing, it makes sense to consider these traits when casting one’s vote. On the other hand, we’ve often suggested that people not vote at all as voting only encourages and endorses the current technocratic corporatism.
Conclusion: We would suggest that people do what they can to separate themselves from the current system and cultivate their independence, professionally and personally, as best they can.