Hillary can’t find inherent meaning in her campaign for president. This is evidenced by her continual makeovers and attempts to fool the public; by her futile attempts for a campaign slogan that will stick; and her dissonance between change and continuity. Her main rationale is based on self-entitlement, that it’s her turn and time for a female president. Such a hollow foundation inevitably crumbles into the abyss of absurdism.
In philosophy, absurdism describes the conflict between our instinctual search for meaning in life, and our frequent inability to find it. In American presidential politics, “the absurd” is the conflict between Hillary’s Sisyphean efforts to find a meaning for her candidacy, and her inability to find it.
Her philandering husband, pointing that “I want you to listen to me” crooked finger at his DNC audience, preposterously proposed she’s an agent of change. Actually, she’s more a political chameleon, changing her colors as political contingencies demand. Indeed, one day later the “change maker” embraced Obama in a symbolic gesture of continuity. Hillary is thereby floundering in absurdism, executing a campaign so devoid of inherent meaning that she can’t even openly commit to a broad strategy of change or more of the same.
It’s probably the latter since Hillary is an enabler of the unions, a prop for the bureaucracy, the secretary of the failed Status Quo. She’s a money-grubbing pander who makes John Kerry’s “I actually did vote for [war funding] before I voted against it,” seem authentic compared to her vacillations on TPP and her calculated denunciations of Wall Street financiers despite schmoozing with them in private. Her ridicule of financial institutions for political expediency is ironic given her acquiescence to their big money contributions. At least Bernie was principled; she’s just a lost soul wallowing in absurdity and riddled with bad faith.
Hillary touts her experience, but experience without good judgment is folly. Mark Twain (others have repeated similar sentiments) said, “Good judgment is the result of experience and experience the result of bad judgment.” No wonder Hillary has so much experience -- her judgment is deeply flawed. Unless one is capable of learning from one’s mistakes, this could be a catch-22: gaining more and more experience from bad judgement but never able to break the vicious cycle.
As Rudy Giuliani said during an interview at the RNC, her experience is the reason she shouldn’t be president. It encompasses one absurd failure after another: experience, bad judgement, failure, more experience… absurdity. Rinse, repeat, trapped in a perpetual loop.
Based on the depth and breadth of her failures, Hillary is incapable of self-correction. She simply can’t find meaning beyond herself; succumbing to solipsism, she is untethered from the reality beyond, concocting her own set of fairytales. Her habitual distortions render her incapable of seeing what is really going on, and how it is affecting others. This quandary is Sisyphean, it broaches the definition of insanity offered by Einstein: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I don’t know the last time Hillary was actually successful at something, other than persecuting Bubba’s female victims. She even failed the D.C. bar exam, though 551 of the 817 applicants that year passed. Hillary has deep experience in being a failure throughout her careers. Though she is book-smart, she seems incapable of leveraging her crystallized knowledge in fluid, real-world scenarios. Her brain gets smart but her head gets dumb.
The “change faker” is poised to repeat more mistakes when reality usurps the Hillary-land fairytales that she is the most qualified candidate ever. For example, we just found out that our economic growth, as measured by GDP, was an anemic 1.2 % for the quarter just ended. That’s pathetic, way below estimates; nevertheless, she’s proposes to raise taxes, to raise the ante on misguided and misdirected spending, to choose winners, to interfere in markets to redistribute wealth, and to generally pursue voodoo Obamanomics. Given the consensus that the country, overall, is not better off today than pre-Obama, Hillary’s proposals meet Einstein’s definition.
A vast majority of Americans feel we’re heading in the wrong direction. Perhaps this is why Trump’s exhortation to “Make America Great Again” resonates. Hillary’s tone deaf response is that America is already great; of course, but our great reserve of exceptionalism will be sorely tested under a 3rd term of Obama. Even Obama’s half-brother over in Kenya denounces that possibility, saying he’d vote for Donald Trump.
Hillary will say anything to get elected, and has trained an agile memory to protect her web of deceit. Her purpose is ultimately meaningless, focusing on her own megalomaniac ambitions rather than the greater good. That’s why her elusive search for meaning is floundering in existential morass, as represented by the slogan “I’m with her,” rather than she being with us.
“Hillarycare” was a debacle. With no signature achievement as senator or secretary of state, she may be one of the most unqualified and absurd presidential candidates in memory. We deserve better than a serial failure whose character is so debilitated, whose judgement is so warped, that (unlike John Kerry who acknowledged his own flip-flopping) she can’t even tell whether she was for something before being against it. Then again, in Hillaryland, “what difference does it make?”
There are houses in which she belongs: the big house, the nuthouse, the House of Cards, the house of doom… but it would expand the bounds of absurdism to put her in the White House.