I'm not usually one for this kind of biblical prophesy, but this does seem like an accurate synopsis of the actual state of affairs.
So, let's get away from the biblical allusions. This can be restated in a series of political philosophical assumptions, just as easily.
Heavy is the crown, it crushes all who wear it eventually.
Why is it so difficult to imagine that it would crush Hillary too? I get the argument that Clintonites make...the majority has supported her. It would make sense even, except that it belies that they've never been in a movement or revolution. It doesn't take a majority to effect a coup d'etat and bring low the empire. It never has. It only takes a minority willing to persist to destroying the status quo rather than remaining in the current state of affairs. Does that not seem like what is actually happening with the Bernie-or-bust crowd? They'd rather see Hillary lose, knowing that it obliterates an entire wing of the party in a permanent sense, than go along to get along and achieve a smaller victory by backing Clinton against Trump.
All movements are corrupted by time and by their own success.
Was there a time for Clintonism? Arguably. I'd say no, except that it has achieved its initial goals. It has brought the Democratic party back from the brink of irrelevance and it has given us a foothold to push back against the Reagan revolution. There within lies the seed of its downfall. It has achieved its objective. It was a tactic for another time and another purpose, it is not for the present. It now leaves us a coalition between those who want this incrementalist neo-liberal status-quo and those that want to go on the attack to achieve real progressive gains, even if it means shedding the neo-liberals from the coalition. We no longer have anything in common and can't have anything in common without either movement (Clintonites evolve out of the "resisting Reaganism" worldview integral to Clintonism) or realignment. (Either the left or the center leaves and a new party identity coalesces around the new shared ideology of the remainder.)
A leader is not a person that can lead their followers, it is a person that convince their enemies to join them. A person that cannot lead their enemies is a person who cannot lead for long.
I could write something long and philosophical. Brevity is the soul of both wit and truth. I have never seen a person who by this definition is a worse leader than Hillary Clinton. She is terrible at inspiring support from those that are not immediate and initial supporters of her...even her attempts at overture are grating and off-putting.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
It would take a blind person to not see that the party is divided, not unified and that there is no possibility for unity because the objectives of the divisions are to force the other division to capitulate and allow them alone to define the future identity of the Democratic party; that it's not merely a passing objective but integral to their fight to win control of the identity of the party...and that identity is mutually disinclusive of the other division of the party.
Clintonites may win...but they'll be right back to 1980, because we're not going to follow their shit anymore and they cannot win elections alone. Hillary's only path to victory is to...stop being Hillary Rodham Clinton basically. She needs to find her progressive drive, reject half-conservative increments, and she needs to realize that her only chance to lead is to take up the sword against the business interests that have backed her for the past 30 years. Old friends make the worst enemies.
= new reply since forum marked as read
