Saturday, June 4, 2016

Hillary's Projective Identification

In an editorial yesterday the New York Post made the obvious point about Hillary Clinton’s fatuous foreign policy address—you know, the one that everyone is praising to the skies:

But what she delivered was a 45-minute rant against Donald Trump — with nary a clue about her plans for leading America on the international stage.

Worse, her string of dump-on-Trump quips might’ve worked better if she had substituted her name for his, starting with her attack on Trump’s “series of rants” — a perfect description of her own speech.

Clinton tried to portray Trump as “dangerous.” But what do you call it when a secretary of state, to shield herself from accountability, stores classified emails (some beyond “top secret”) on her private, unsecured server, leaving them vulnerable to hackers the world over?

Or who goes home for the night with a US consulate besieged by al Qaeda-linked terrorists — then later lies to the victims’ families about how a YouTube video was to blame?

Clinton called Trump “temperamentally unfit” to be commander-in-chief. But how would you describe an ex-top official who continually lies to the public and holds herself above the law?

Trump “doesn’t understand” the world, she said — but then denied that the world has laughed at President Obama’s weakness. She even claimed we’re “safer” with Obama’s deal with Iran, which gives the mullahs a clear path to nuclear weapons and hundreds of billions to fund terrorism.

Who doesn’t understand the world?

More: Hillary said Trump would “embolden” our enemies. Yet, like Obama, she can’t even bring herself to call ISIS what it is: “radical Islamic extremists.” How does she think the terrorists are reacting to that?

Clinton’s aides say her speech is just the start of a push to paint Trump as “dangerous” and unpredictable. But maybe America would be safer if world leaders — from Russia to North Korea to Iran — actually worried about how our president might respond to aggression.

As opposed to a president like, say, Clinton — who can’t be trusted by Americans.

In the psycho world this is called projective identification.

The Wall Street Journal makes the same point, advising Trump to attack Clinton on her foreign policy record, you know, the one that is conspicuous for its lack of achievement:

Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State was a key first-term architect who bears some responsibility for the tide of global disorder and proliferating threats to U.S. security and interests.

The rise of authoritarian powers on the Obama-Clinton watch includes China in the Western Pacific, Russia in Europe and Iran in the Middle East. All are bidding to become regional hegemons, and they’ve made substantial gains amid Mr. Obama’s global retreat.

The Obama-Clinton team overthrew Moammar Gadhafi in Libya but then did nearly nothing to restore public safety. Even discounting the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, this indifference has allowed ISIS to establish a beachhead in North Africa.

Speaking of which, the failure to intervene in Syria has created what former CIA Director David Petraeus calls “a geopolitical Chernobyl.” Along with the total withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011, which Mrs. Clinton championed, this abdication has created the space for Islamic State to thrive and swamped Europe with refugees.

ISIS did not exist when Mr. Obama took office, and Mr. Trump could gain an advantage by proposing a better strategy to defeat the jihadists. The FBI estimates that “thousands” of Americans may have been radicalized online or overseas, and they could soon perpetrate more attacks akin to Paris, Brussels or San Bernardino.

The battle is engaged.


Dennis said...

My first impression in hearing Clinton give her "supposed" foreign policy speech was "Where's the Beef?" My second was another lie used to get media attention which would not have had it otherwise. My third impression was when she started describing Trump I began to wonder if she wasn't involved in doing a self portrait. So much of it describe Hillary. My fourth impression was one of Trump's attributes is his lack of predictability. It might prove useful for our adversaries and our "supposed" allies. Ronald Reagan was successful because he was unpredictable and could not be ignores by others like Obama. My fifth impression was that almost everything Hillary said could be seen as a positive if utilized correctly.
I suspect Trump is playing a game with Hillary, et al and will not show his cards until the "battle" is joined. Far too many people who know Trump say he is not thin skinned as he seems to portray. One could not be if they are going to be competitive in the arena in which he has done well.
An aside here. I would hope that Trump selects someone for VP who is truly conversant and knowledgeable about Washington D.C.and knows how to get things done. They should spend time setting out the goals that need to be accomplished with each doing what they are best at doing and staying in constant communications to assure Trump's approval. In other words becoming a team vice having the VP doing ceremonies and what is expected now. That way they can hit the ground running. Far better than 2 people who only really know government and see government as the answer instead of the problem. Government has becomes so large and unwieldy that it may take two people to rein it in. And yes I do see the problem.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

"Clinton’s aides say her speech is just the start of a push to paint Trump as 'dangerous' and unpredictable."

Just the start, huh? Wow. I'm sure he's trembling. He's painted her as "crooked." Two syllables instead of Hillary's eight.

She is crooked. It's going to stick. The Democrats did it to Romney. Payback. Feel the bern. Enjoy the riots in Philly.

Ares Olympus said...

Take down speeches like Hillary delivered are certainly easy, repeat all the nonsense that Trump says for 40 minutes, and leave pauses for people to laugh.

Minnesota journalist Eric Black asks why the republican candidates failed to do the same.
But the speech was hardly at all about what she has done or would do and much more about Donald Trump’s unfitness to be president. On that score, I’m pretty sure it was brilliant, thorough, convincing, hilarious and very well delivered for a candidate whose strength is not as a spellbinding orator. Nonetheless, I was spellbound by this oration and found myself wondering how it was possible that no one had done this sooner.

It is interesting that the NYPost is so critical of Hillary's attempt - why are they doing Trump's work for him? And the Wall Street Journal, isn't Hillary the Wall Street Candidate? She's the one who will keep all the candy flowing to the good boys and bad boys alike.

Perhaps what most won me over for was Hillary's response to a young voter.
Taylor Gipple: "It feels like there’s a lot of young people, like myself, who are very passionate supporters of Bernie Sanders and I just don't see the same enthusiasm from younger people for you. In fact, I've heard from quite a few people my age who think you're dishonest..."

Hillary: “If you’re new to politics, if it’s the first time you’ve really paid attention, you go ‘oh my gosh, look at all of this’ and say, ‘why are they throwing all of that at her’? I’ll tell you why — because I’ve been on the front lines of change and progress since I was your age. I’ve been fighting for kids and women and the people left out and left behind to help them make the most of their lives.”

Hillary's final answer to the young man also was that she can't keep up with all her critics, so she has to just keep moving forward. What else could she do? Quit?

So we can pretend Hillary has a "Projective Identification" with Trump and she's describing all her faults through her criticism of him, but it is laughibly false.

She is nothing like Trump, other than their mutual interest in money. She doesn't boast nonsense claims every chance she gets, and all the WSJ can say is she was a bad Secretary of State because that's the consensus in their echo chamber. It's pundit interpretation and "projective identification" all the way down.

Bernie Sanders never questioned her honesty, although he did question her willingness to take $240k for 1 hour speeches to bankers, and its worth questioning the existence of the Clinton Foundation that easily looks like a crony "Pay to play" contract for rich people who want access to power.

So if she could properly close those doors, I'm satisfied that Hillary will be 100 times better president than distractible vain vindictive foolish Trump.

My only regret for her hopeful landslide victory is I expect this economy won't last another 4 years, and she'll be blamed for it, and an even worse candidate than Trump will find himself on the top of the heap for the 2020 presidental election. There must be dozens of charismatic mobsters and drug lords ready to give America what we deserve.

When a huckster says "Trust me" you only ignore that clear warning to run away because you are on the huckster side. You believe he'll only hurt people you don't care about. Now that's might be another kind of "projective identification".

I have no idea how Hillary will lead us through the next financial crisis, and I expect she's just as likely to start a tail-wag-the-dog war as anyone. So I'm only sure she's not a liberal. She's a Clinton-republican who has taken over the Democratic party.