The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Monday, May 16, 2016

The Metagame

I have on numerous occasions suggested that Hillary Rodham Clinton brings a trifecta of really bad traits to her run for the presidency. HRC is dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent. Over the coming months I'll provide a factual basis for all three indictments (Oops! with Hillary, you've got to be very careful when using that word), but today, we'll focus on HRC's "metagame"—the way in which she combats any charges, no matter how legitimate, of dishonesty, corruption or incompetence/irresponsibility.

Move # 1. Whenever she is confronted with hard evidence of wrong-doing, irresponsible decisions, blatant dishonesty or any other nefarious activity, the Clinton's response is to apply the obfuscation narrative. She attempts to deflect and obfuscate, making legalistic statements that mislead the listener. For example: "there were no documents marked classified on my private server" or "other Secretaries of State used private email." Both claims are knowingly misleading because both change the subject, leading the listener away from the truth, not toward it. Documents need not be marked classified to be classified, and no other Secretary of State has ever created his or her own private email server—it's the server that matters because the server provides one with the ability to hide or delete emails that might be incriminating (Oh wait, that's exactly what HRC did, isn't it?).

Move # 2. If her obfuscation is so outrageous that even a complicit the media can't ignore it, she moves on the Move # 2, the conspiracy narrative. HRC will claim that it's all partisan politics, there's no there, there. Attacks are initiated by an evil right wing conspiracy. This clever ploy is lapped up by the trained hamsters in the media, giving them an excuse to discount any factual evidence (after all, it's just a right wing conspiracy, right?). So when Clinton blatantly lies about the catalyst for the Benghazi murders, her claims that questions about her lies came only from the GOP somehow shield her from confronting her lies. After all, "what difference does it make" that four American's were murdered by Islamic terrorists and she lied about the cause, about the decisions that occurred while the attack was on going, and about the aftermath.

Move # 3. If Moves #1 and #2 fail, Clinton falls back on the identity politics narrative. No matter what, it's so, so important to have a woman as president and Hillary, is, afterall, a woman. Forget all of these accusations made by people who are, get ready, anti-woman, they're just "misogynists who want me to lose becuase I'm a woman."

Clinton's shrinking band of stepford-wife followers buy into her metagame, and along with her trained hamsters in the media who turn a blind eye, she often gets away with her claims. But here's the thing. In what will be the dirtiest campaign in American history, there is a GOP candidate, who, for all his faults, will not shrink from a fight. He will, I suspect, call out Hillary when she makes Move #1, #2, or #3, and that should be fun to watch.