Hillary Rodham Hegel

I think HRC comes off rather well in this interview with Jeffrey Goldberg: Hillary Clinton: Chinese System Is Doomed, Leaders on a ‘Fool’s Errand’.  Makes me proud I voted for her in the 2008 California primary, though in those dark, illuded days, it was more a protest vote against the frightening BHO, who is, of course, the real Ms. America to me now… (Times and minds do change…)

Anyway, as a sucker for historical references, I especially liked her pivot from a first point to a connected second point about the dispersal of power in our era.  Her maneuver also involves a simultaneously (dialectically, almost) realistic and idealistic refusal to commit either to realism or to idealism in foreign policy:

HRC:  I’m just saying that it’s not either/or. So that today, that, to me, would be impossible, so the realist position today is you have to deal with. Realism evolves. I mean, we aren’t living in Bismarckian Germany right now. And can you imagine any secretary of state like Henry Kissinger being able to go anywhere secretly today? I don’t think so.

JG: You mean allegedly being sick in Pakistan for a week and dashing off to China? You would kind of like that, though.

HRC: Well, of course I would. But it’s not possible. The second issue is the dispersal of power through information that was unimagined a decade ago, let alone 50 years ago. So even if you thought you could just deal with one guy in one country and you could check it off your list of concerns, that’s impossible now. The way technology has exploded means that we are all living in a totally different environment. It has changed everything. And to pretend otherwise, that there’s some kind of great doctrine out there that can be taken from the heavens and imposed upon the global national body, is just not realistic anymore.

The “global national body” is an interesting phrase…  and rather neo-Hegelian – the idea that the universal state is still bound up in and constituted by the policies of the individual nations, yet somehow is becoming a single “global body” in turn constituted by disparate individuals operating in a non- or extra-national capacity.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

4 comments on “Hillary Rodham Hegel

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. To watch M. de Goldberg and Secretary Clinton performing and detect Hegel is no run-of-the-mill neofeat. On the other hand, an ability to provoke “¿¡Now who’d ’a’ thunka’ THAT!?” in complete e-strangers is not, perhaps, the best conceivable return on one.s parents’ investment in tertiary educationalism.

    The present keyboard would prefer to confine itself to praising Her Excellency.s quasifrankness about wishing she could do cabinet diplomacy the way Prince Bismarck and the Freelord of Kissinger used to be able to: “Well, of course I would. But it’s not possible.”

    Well, she *would* say that, _¿no es verdad?_

    It is “wink, wink, nod, nod” time at the Foggy Bottom Corral, for “of course” His Wunnerfulness of H*rv*rd might easily have fobbed off a factious scribbler with the same nostalgia-laden tale thirty minutes before somehow windin’ up in Beijing on his way to Mass. General. [*]

    Happy days.

    [*] Prince Bismarck, I believe, would not have been obliged to so much as recognize the existence of the Banî Goldberg. Did the great man ever actually speak to any of his own press reptiles, let alone anybody else.s?

    So times *have* changed a little, ¡no doubt about it!

    Nevertheless, expecting “open covenants, openly arrived at” to become pandemic between now and next Monday afternoon is the sort of good attitude that makes one wish one owned a spare Brooklyn Bridge or two.

  2. Wonderfully cryptic as always, McCloskey, however a Alinskyite like Hillary, would know that the ‘persuasion of power’ is more important
    to the Chinese, than the ‘power of persuasion, their jury rigged oligarchy, could collapse into an fractured clique of warlords, at any time.

  3. @ John H. McTruncated:
    HRC/H, my almost-ideal, didn’t quasi- or even semi- or even micro-frankly commit to a Bismarcko-Kissingerian policy, she just confessed that in seeking her Alinskyiist Socialite Neo-New Neo-World Neo-Order she is constrained from running around making top secret dates with boys from the other side of the tracks, whether for covenanting or for other unmentionable practices. We’re left with a global national body that’s all dressed up, nowhere to go.

  4. You live in La La land, highlander, her people, which apparently includes
    Samantha Power now, contact their people, it’s all very copacetic.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins