Bermuda Triangulation
By Robert A. Hahn Posted in Democrats — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Washington Post informs us this morning that Hillary Clinton Crafts
Centrist Stance on War. This historic event merits some note, for it is the first time that a legacy media outlet has confessed that Hillary Clinton is crafty; something the rest of us have known for quite some time.
For some reason, the Post finds it newsworthy that Hillary Clinton, a known Democrat, has embraced a position on Iraq that resembles one of Schröedinger's cats. Which is to say, it is neither here nor there. Or if it is, it's both at the same time. Or maybe neither. Democrats are always taking these sorts of positions on everything. Rather than come down on one side or another of an issue, they simply favor both. At the same time.
This is why John Kerry lost the election. He could not master the subtleties of quantum mechanics. He insisted on being for it before he was against it, instead of being both at the same time.
Here is Hillary, from the Washington Post, explaining the basic principle:
- "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."
more below...
See how flexible and nuanced that is? No matter what you favor in this matter, Hillary is on your side.
In the actual Schröedinger's cat experiment, there comes a moment when the experimenter must open the box and peek at the cat to see what's going on in there. At that moment, it will turn out that the cat is either dead or alive. It will no longer be in some indeterminate state where nobody knows what it is. And so it will be with Hillary Clinton.
When Democrats use this device, the objective is to keep anyone from opening the box until after the election. At which point half the people who thought she was on their side, will find out she wasn't. Surprise!
If you are of the conservative persuasion, you might think that Democrats are being disingenuous when they take these quantum mechanical indeterminate-state positions. But that is because you are not progressive enough to realize that things are not always so black-and-white. To you, it seems quite obvious that a cat is either dead or alive; it can't possibly be both. But in the reality that Democrats inhabit, which they call a "community," there is a "third way."
This third way is called centrism.
Centrism is the wonderful place in the middle where there is a deadline, but it isn't a deadline. It's the place where you can be in favor of jobs, and want to crack down on employers. It's where you want everyone to have health care, but you don't want doctors or drug companies to make any money. It is a wondrous place where everyone is happy because everyone gets their way.
Some Democrats, especially those in the press, like to use the term "mainstream" to refer to these "centrist" positions. That is why press institutions often refer to themselves as the mainstream media. It means that they promote centrist candidates. Like Hillary Clinton.
To a mainstream media outlet like the Washington Post, insisting that there be a deadline, or that there not be a deadline, is extremist. The centrist position, and the one that Hillary Clinton has adopted, is that there be a time certain when this must end, but that there be no deadline. As the Washington Post puts it:
- Clinton has stayed steadfastly on a centrist path
- Clinton is confronting the Democratic Party's long-standing dilemma on national defense
- Clinton took responsibility for her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, while leaving open whether she would have opposed it
To be sure, not all Democrats fall fo agree with this. "Senator Clinton is demonstrating cowardice in the face of the right-wing noise machine," said Tom Mattzie, Washington director of the liberal group MoveOn.org. Mattzie is an extremist. He wants a deadline that's actually a deadline, not some quantum mechanical fuzz that might turn out, after the election, to be a dead cat.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, says that
- Some analysts call her approach a classic example of the kind of third-way triangulation... practiced by her husband, former president Bill Clinton.
Let's hope not. Remember Bill Clinton's "middle class tax cut?" After the election, we opened the box and out popped the largest tax increase in American history. What kind of tax cut was that? It was the kind that was neither a tax cut nor was it not a tax cut. It was a tax increase. Surprise!
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Joe Lieberman finally makes the news! — Comments (59) »
Bermuda Triangulation 19 Comments (0 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Senator Clinton is an equivicator.
Although I'm not sure that I can really blame her, given her party's current decision to lock the controls and send the [expletive deleted] right into the sun (thank you, Dennis Miller). I'd hate to be in similar circumstances.
I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it.
A rare misstep by Her Royal Highness? We'd better not let anyone forget she said this. It's a defining Kerry-esque moment. Too bad there's no video.
Mostly because that's effectively the Bush Administration's plan already: we stay as long as we need to, but we won't place artificial restrictions upon our stay. It's annoyingly clever of her to take advantage of her party's reluctance to admit what President Bush is actually doing, but it's clever nonetheless.
represented linear thought. Hillary's represents a parallel universe.
In seeing the liberal base going after Hillary on her war flip-flopping. It is satisfying to know that there are people in the Democratic party that aren't going to stand for her wishy-washiness either.
The comparison to Schrodinger's Cat is perfect. I only wish I'd thought of it first. I think Hillary's position on abortion also fits the model. But really it all makes sense...
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that you can know either the position or the momentum of a particle, but not both. Thus, since we know that Hillary is headed for the Democratic nomination, we are prevented by the laws of physics from being able to pin down any actual positions on issues.
Great post.
not so fast my friend. Not long ago I would agree that Hillary's coronation was a lock. I still think it is, but with less than the 99.9% certainty it once was, perhaps 95% now. Why do I say this? Russ Feingold and Mark Warner. She cant tack too far to one side anymore and for the primaries she has to tack left. But no matter how far she goes, she will never, ever hope to go left of Feingold. He is Kucinich without the ears. Think of all the wackiness of the '08 primary season for the Dems.
I think the hard work on Hillary will be done by Feingold and someone could seize an opportunity to bust in.
Far fetched? I am not old enough but I bet LBJ was as prohibitive a favorite as Hillary. You say Viet Nam dragged him down? Iraq will be seen as Hillary's war now also; just ask Mama Sheehan.
And can I point out our own little Cat? John McCain is absolutely, unequivocably opposed to torture under any circumstances. Unless it's important and then the President just has to do what he has to do. Wha???? This one made me crazy.
- I think Hillary's position on abortion also fits the model.
Yes, it does. All of them do it, though. Many of the liberals right here on RedState do it. They will articulate a position which embodies two (to you and me) contradictory principles, but unless they are all lying to us, it makes sense in their heads. I'm convinced is it an artifact of what makes liberals be liberals. Their heads are different from ours; they live in some quantum reality where they really can advocate yes and no at the same time, and it all seems harmonious to them.
What I draw from this is that it is useless to try to find some common ground with them. The thing to do instead is to work and organize as hard as we can to keep them from getting their hands on the levers of power. Otherwise we will get more social programs that provide cradle-to-grave assistance to people for the purpose of turning them into productive, self-reliant individuals.
A bit non sequitor, apoligies for that, but this is the only recent diary touching on Iraq.
Instead it is the product of sloppy thinking and the mass production of middle quality education. It isn't the cat, it is the 'feel good' mentality that is controlling their thinking.
What HRC is aiming at is a position where everyone can feel good about everything. No more casualties and hardships for 'our' troops. No more hard thinking about tyranny abroad. No more hard thinking about how to stop terror at home. No reflexion on one's hubris for 'knowing better' than the troops in the field or the professionals in the Pentagon or MacDill or Qatar what should be done, or how much the military can stand. No guilt for abandoning all the work that has been started. No shame for running away when the casualties haven't even reached the level of Pearl Harbor or 9/11, not to mention D-Day.
They live in a world were motive matters more than results, where idiocy if well intentioned deserves respect, while cold logic is denegrated. There are never bad consequences for changing things that at the moment seem horrible. Instead of Realpolitik or International Idealism, their mode of diplomacy is a kind of International Brotherhood of Victims reunion-- if only we could all understand how we have been victimized by the White Capitalist Anglophone Male Empire, then all our differences would seem so small that we co-operate and live happily ever after. [in a Mugabe like world, but don't mention the famines if they are caused by indig. tyrrants.]
Hillary learned well from Nixon. Remember his "I have a secret plan to end the (Vietnam) war" in 1968? Since he never told anyone what it was, he never could be accused of breaking any promises. Few probably thought he intended to bomb North Vietnam, keep the war going for seven more years, then lose it.
Hillary's "non-rigid" and yet "non-open" timetable shares Nixon's plan's chief characteristic: It doesn't really exist. She's just saying "Trust me, I'm the smartest woman in the world."
...just really digging the Schrodinger's Cat reference. If you don't really "get" it, read The Dancing Wu-Li Masters by Gary Zuhav. He makes that sort of stuff make sense. Fun book (though a bit dense). Ask for it in your stocking (or for Channakah, or if none of the above apply, just buy it).
But not your idea of what a liberal is.
Which is probably Hillary.
I can't stand Hillary. I couldn't agree more. Except that I think her pro-war stance is earnest. If you chooose to interpret that as a neither-here-nor-there stance, I won't argue. I can see that. I think therefore it's an earnestly neither-here-nor-there stance.
Of "both and" which embraces the concept that something can be both black and white at the same time; while we of a Western European culturalization wander the paths of the sangsara believing things are "either or"
And so Hillary and progressive dems embrace the concept of "both and". They are able to hold two utterly contradictory positions and see them as both true.
Wasn't that what Orwell called "double think"?
My view of Hillary is that she has no core values and no morals. She is 100% a grifter and she decided as a woman that it would be easier to Grift the Democrat side of the isle than the Republican one.
Most things 'Hillary' makes sense if you approach things this way. Watch this movie if you need more background... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099703/
Hillary seems a lot like a 'Lilly Dillon' to me.
For some perspective, you may want to read Taking Chance Home. It's a longish story, but I think it's important to know what really happens when our fallen are sent home.
"My view of Hillary is that she has no core values and no morals."
That statement completely captures the entire Clinton ethos ('ethos' may be giving them too much credit) neither of them have a moral compass or rudder other than one driven by convenience and opportunity.
All the more reason for people of good will to expend every effort to defeat HRC's run for re-election in '06.
While we clods stumble around like rhinos in the rose garden the subtle amongst us weave delicate and sophisicated patterns and policies that for the life of us we are too dumb to comprehend, even if we could pull ourselves away from watching NASCAR races and swilling warm beer. It takes a great and finely honed mind to appreciate that Hillary is against timetables, but---. The campaign has started and you will see the media twist themselves into such shape as to make a pretzel seem a straight line, and never know it. I daresay, a form of auto-hypnotism. Not that they will be alone.