(I told Pat that I was writing about Hillary Clinton, and wanted the article to be in two parts. This is the first part. The second will attempt to describe the email scandal.)
Kissinger once observed that in contemporary America, political power “gravitates towards those who have an obsessive desire to win it by any means, and whoever does not monomaniacaly desire the goal of getting it, whoever afraid of it or disdains it, will fail, however great their qualifications.” To a political leader, voters are the means of attaining their aims. Voters are flattered, cajoled, admired, wooed, pressured and are endlessly courted and pursued. The great bulk of voters are gullible and ignorant. They don’t reason, they submit; they are incapable of self-doubt. They reason that “if you’re right, you’re right,” and the door to their mind slams shut. In the TV interviews with the supporters of the candidate, they lack the intelligence to explain why they have chosen a candidate that they have.
Politicians are a bit like mosquitoes – they live on others’ blood. All politicians are creatures ruled by self-interest. The French aphorist Bruyere has written this marvelous passage: A politician is “a man who knows the ways of the Court (and) is master of his gestures, his eyes and his face; he is deep, impenetrable; he pretends not to notice injuries done him, he smiles to his enemies, controls his temper, disguises his passions, belies his heart, speaks and acts against his real opinions. All this elaborate procedure is merely a vice which we call deceitfulness, which is sometimes as useless to the courtier for his advancement as frankness, sincerity and virtue would have been.”
That is a perfect description of Hillary.
In very plan of political action, self-interest intervenes, and it distorts and corrupts, and the result is that vast numbers of people in politics who don’t really care for determining or admiring what is true, have a field day in politics. One of the first things to remember is that followers of a political party don’t realize that their membership takes away a portion of their self-ownership. Instead, there is a blind rush to discover and define what makes them think and believe what everybody believes as a party member. Of course, belonging to a party, diminishes your freedom of decision. Conformity reigns in a party, and unanimity acts to put solid ground under the followers’ feet. It escapes them that a unanimous error is all the more calamitous because it is unanimous. It is unfortunate but undeniable that politics encourages credulity, weak mindedness, lack of imagination and intellectual and moral blindness. Politics takes advantage of the reluctance in everyone’s personality to make the additional effort to think a thing through. The blizzard of images used in politics replaces the talent and labor required to reach a sound conclusion. It the art of politics to delivers the deceitful conclusion to the distracted and unaware that hunger for it.
The Inadequacies of Self-Will
It is plain to me that Hillary is a very self-willed creature. Self-willed people always think they know what is best, and give little time to doubts about their course of action. They never consult their conscience. Self-willed are people are people of narrow focus. Many of them go through life with a box around their heads. They are not aware of anything that lies beyond their immediate aim. They lack imagination, and they cannot see or imagine or picture the consequences that may occur if they succeed in their aims. They see that narrow aim and that only. Too often, they are not very bright. I’m not saying that they can’t reason or that their minds can’t be well-stocked. But things on the periphery of their aim are not understood because they are not clearly seen. Only the goal gets the attention. Only the goal attracts the drive and the energy.
Self-willed people are very determined about getting the wrong goals. Once an action doesn’t produce the desired results, a self-willed person does not stop to analyze why the action miscarried. Their first impulse is to repeat the act, repeat it and repeat it, until it finally dawns on them they didn’t’ perform it correctly in the first place. In other words, their will tends to crowd out their judgment.
Politics is an enemy of freedom of thought. It is unfortunate that politics encourages credulity, weak-mindedness, lack of imagination and intellectual and moral blindness. Politics takes advantage of the reluctance lurking in everyone’s personality that evades making the additional effort to think a thing through. The blizzard of visual images used in politics replaces the talent and labor required to reach a sound conclusions on your own. It the art of politics to deliver the deceitful and self-seeking to the distracted and unaware.
From what I have observed, Hillary exhibits trace of child abuse.
Abused children are full of fear. They flinch by habit. The first a thing an abused child does is to learn to conceal its real nature plus the child makes it a habit to cover and alibi the abuser. An abused child can’t afford to be its authentic self because showing it will bring the wrath of punishment upon them. The abused child’s major job to placate. Its personal safety is a stake. The other effect of abuse is to disguise. The child, having lost its innocence, develops habits of deceit and shiftiness. At all costs, the child must conceal and stifle any urge to criticize the abuser. Such a child lacks courage. Courage is the first thing to dissolve in the face of parental abuse. The rule of survival demands that you seem, not be. What you are, your authentic self, has only earned punishment and contempt. You must appear different than you really are. Most of abused children are skilled dissemblers. They act and portray.
From my own experience, I believe that some inferiority sits at the base of the abuser’s make up. Somehow they realize that they are so incomplete, that they want to rule, to subject, to dominate. The worst thing about them is that they rob their offspring of joy.
Some people emerge from brutal or authoritian parents like kicked dogs. Their first reaction is to secretly blame themselves: they are faulty children or they wouldn’t have been abused. But it soon becomes clear that the authority over them, that made them obey and submit, is unjust; it is not righteous. Authority is supposed to protect, teach, shelter and develop. Instead, its misuse inflicts humiliation and pain, and the child begins to pose and conceal its real nature in order not to be found out and punished again. By nature, the abused are cowards. They don’t dare to resist. They go along by getting along. They lack integrity.
It takes an abused child a long time to discover its real nature. Some children remain frightened and crushed, and many still have a tormented sense of self-loathing because of the many compromises they had to make in order to survive. Their nerves remain, to some degree, paralyzed. It requires a long time for a child to rebuild its courage. The chronic shyness and flinches still persist, but over time, the child finally finds that, beneath the timidity, their will has a core of iron.
There are different cases. Thanks to their abused childhood, some victims believe that there are some human beings who are marked for subjection. Having been ruled without mercy, the adult-child emerges with the desire to rule others. Being on top of others, above them, means safety. I think Hillary believes that. Since her abuse didn’t destroy her, the people that she rules and abuses and turns into tools of her will be survive. Of course, such a view is very hard-hearted.
By contrast, more highly endowed abused children vow they will never inflicted on others what a parent inflicted on them. They vow not to repeat the injustices that made them suffer so much pain. Gen. Grant suffered so many failures and humiliations that he refused to humiliate his enemies.
But from what I observe, Hillary is a deeply wounded soul. She is terribly vain and touchy, and from what I’ve seen, she takes no pleasure in herself. She doesn’t relish her life. She completely lacks the wonderful value of liveliness, the depth of joyful response, spontaneity and the capacity for deep feeling. Her personality lacks things, and she knows she lacks them, and the knowledge acts to embitter her. She takes no joy in merely being alive. She is never carefree. Her instinct is to seem rather then be. To her, life is a joyless, bothersome chore. She acts as if she were being pursued by something merciless, and that only by securing some vast public success will her sense of being a victim will finally be banished. Only such a success will restore her pride.
She refuses to be like other people. To be like other people represents a failure to her mind. The result is that Hillary labors away at being what she is not. There is always a struggle in each of us between the authentic and the fake, the sincere and the mask, the honest versus the false. She finds herself on the wrong side of such conceptions. To me, she is a very insecure perfectionist. She lacks that noble pride that is determined to depend on nothing but itself. That it why she uses people the way she does. She is afraid that if she doesn’t reach the pinnacle of authority, at whatever cost and by any means, she will be consigned to the abyss. Her conduct exhibits signs of frantic desperation in her desire to win the White House.
She is a meddler, a busy body, always concerned with modifying her own circumstances for her own advantage. She clearly uses the mind she has, but how bright is it? How penetrating is it? Too what degree are her observations deformed by her desire to use them to promote herself?
I believe that all political ambition is based o some inferiority or mind and character. The inferiority can be disguised in many ways -- extreme purpose, efficiency, competence which act to impress the world even while such things don’t impress her. Most inferior natures are enslaved to the desire of making a nice impression. She suffers from that as well. She is not a person of heart. She is not straightforward. I had a friend in college who was convinced of his superlative ability in every field. He had what looked to be a strong personality. He was very self- willed with a very bad temper if contradicted. He assumed leadership on every possible topic. He didn’t have much of a memory, but he was always quoting parts of things, never able to light on the key word to explain them. He was one who felt that by holding the right beliefs, you were exempted from thinking about then or defining them. He believed that unanimity of opinion was equivalent to wisdom.
He never admitted he fell short in anything. Nothing penetrated his conceit. Self-assertion would overwhelm any desire to acknowledge a defect in his character. He would often write hot tempered letters on various topics, to the newspapers and would give them to me to admire but almost always, the data of the argument was either missing or mistaken. But if I demurred, he would try to intimidate me asserting his mental excellence. He was a dragon if contradicted and a vindictive monster if criticized. He didn’t collide with you directly. His was the art of the snub, the punishing silence, the withdrawal of any encouragement, all designed to make his critic recant. He was always the master of little slurs, cheap shots, emotional boycotts, indulging in neglect and, petty retaliations until the critic recants and confesses his sin.
Does any of this sound familiar?