Monday, June 09, 2003

The Single Most Absurd, Ridiculous Statement About Hillary's Book...

May be this howler uttered by Lisa Caputo, Hillary's former press secretary:

"She's quite candid in the book..." said Caputo.

To describe Hillary Clinton as "candid" in almost any public utterance beggars parody. This woman actually expects people to believe that she was taken by surprise by Bill's Oval Office infidelities:

"I could hardly breathe," the junior senator from New York wrote, describing her post-Lewinsky confrontation with her husband on August 15, 1998. "Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, 'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?' I was furious and getting more so by the second...I was dumbfounded, heartbroken and outraged that I'd believed him at all," Hillary claimed.

Several years ago, I read David Brock's The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Now, Brock wrote that book while he was making his way out of the conservative camp, so he was trying very hard to be sympathetic to Hillary. But even so, the portrait that emerges is that of a calculating, power-driven harridan, who made her deal with the devil (Bill) long before he became president.

It appeared ever more clearly as I read that book that at some point in college, as Hillary began to become politically active, she had to make a decision between choosing Power or Principle. Then, and at every subsequent point in her life where she has had to make that choice, she has chosen Power. Her book is simply one more calculated effort along that trajectory.

The thing that amazes me is that there could be anyone who is incapable of seeing that. Longtime Democrat insider Susan Estrich sees it, and thinks it will be the Dems' undoing. For her candor she is being given the cold shoulder by other Dems.

Are there people who are actually fooled by the Clintons? Mesmerized, svengali-like, by their charm or aura?

Or is it that their followers and apologists, like the Clintons, are likewise motivated primarily by the Will to Power?

Mark Shea has commented that the Democrats have become the Party of Abortion[TM]. And I think that the embrace of abortion and the Will to Power are not unrelated. For what is abortion but the exercise of god-like power (life and death) over another person? Pro-aborts resort to dodges like "a fetus is not a human being" but they all know it's a dodge. The most honest pro-aborts, like Peter Singer, have admitted that the fetus is a human being, but they then come up with Mengele-inspired reasons for why it's OK for us to kill those human beings.

Was the Democrats' embrace of abortion the cause, or the effect, of its becoming the Party of The Will to Power[TM]? I don't know, and it may be a chicken-and-egg argument. But the party which has never heard of an abortion it wasn't OK with, and the party which is willing to swallow patent absurdities from Hillary, is the same party.

The Democrats, in their willingness to sacrifice all for the pursuit of Power, have become the party of Folly, and the chorus of adulation for Hillary's book is the object lesson in that transformation. But to anyone who is familiar with the Christian understanding of the human person, this isn't really a surprise, and can be explained by the Dems' concurrent transformation, at the national level, into the Party of Sin[TM]. That they have become such is really, for a Catholic, beyond dispute: They have embraced sin with respect to the homosexual agenda, they have embraced sin with respect to contraception, they have embraced sin with respect to population control, and they have embraced sin with regard to abortion.

Now, in saying that the Democrats have become the Party of Sin[TM] I am NOT saying (commentors take note!) that:

(a) Republicans (or socialists or libertarians, for that matter) never commit sins.
(b) The Democratic Party advocates NO policies or programs which Catholics can or should support.
(c) It is a sin to vote for any Democrat (though it may indeed be one to vote for particular dems).
(d) The Republican Party is ordained by God to be the instrument of His will.

What I am saying is that the Democratic Party, to an extent unprecedented in this nation's history, proposes, advocates, agitates, advances and enacts policies and programs that Catholics (and other orthodox Christians) can only describe as promoting, permitting, or even enjoining sin. And I am saying that the embrace of sin and the embrace of folly are related, because the embrace of sin is, in various forms, the embrace of folly. There is nothing so foolish as sin, because sin is self-destructive.

St. Thomas Aquinas explained that sin clouds the intellect: The more one committs sins and remains unrepentant, the more one's mind loses the ability to perceive reality clearly and make appropriate judgments about that reality. One reason for this is that we seek to justify our sins: in our heart we know we have done wrong, so we try to explain our sins away or make out that they really aren't sins at all. If we go too far down this path we can get to the point that we declare that our sins are really virtues. This habit of self-deception renders us progressively unable to make moral judgments, or indeed, right judgments about anything at all.

As Mark bluntly put it: "Sin makes you stupid."

Under this analysis, that the party that which made Moloch its god has become the party that can repeat Hillary's inanities with a straight face, shouldn't come as a surprise. Sin is folly, and that the Party of Sin[TM] should become the Party of Folly[TM] is practically inevitable. They will, eventually, go the way of all foolishness. But in the meantime, the deceptions and illusions they pepetuate have and will continue to create misery, despair, and death, for themselves and for us all.