The Cynical Brilliance of Hillary Clinton

"The problem with the disengaged and the uninformed is that it is difficult to engage and inform them." -Matthew Yglesias 

Presidential primary season has been going for months, but with the Iowa caucuses only weeks away, the campaign is finally starting to matter. Today I'm going to explore a brilliant, and diabolical, campaign tactic that Hillary Clinton has been using.

Flanking Speed!

Primary campaigns, more so than general elections, are a battle of ideas among basically like-minded people. Primary voters are a subset of the general electorate, and are typically composed of the more passionate (and more strongly partisan) voters in the party. 

The combination of these factors means that recent primaries have been exercises in running toward the extremes. This had been truer for Republicans* than for Democrats, at least until Obama beat Hillary Clinton by emphasizing their differing votes on the war in Iraq. Successful primary candidates attempt to appeal to the fringes of their party, and often try to pivot back to the center for the general election.

*Remember John McCain abandoning...basically all of his core values in an effort to look more conservative, or Mitt Romney running away from his health care accomplishments? 

Clinton seems to have learned from 2008, and she packaged herself this year as a progressive fighter. Bernie Sanders, though, posed a real problem**: the Democratic Socialist from Vermont is way more liberal than Hillary. How could she appeal to the liberal base, when running against someone who nominally sits to her left?

**Bernie posed an even bigger problem for Martin O'Malley, since O'Malley's plan was to run as the more-liberal alternative to Clinton. Bernie out-flanked him, and preempted any hope his campaign had. 

Capitalize on Ignorance!

Beginning in the first Democratic debate, in October, and continuing through recent speeches, Clinton's campaign has been employing sleight of hand that would be admirable if not for its brazen cynicism. This subversion started gradually, beginning with a brilliant (and not actually disingenuous) focus on issues in the first debate: Clinton repeatedly brought up Bernie Sanders' record on gun control. Sanders may be much more liberal than Clinton, but on this one issue he actually shares ground with the Republicans. Hillary hammered his opposition to gun control, and Sanders was left mumbling excuses about hunters in his rural home state. This was spectacular turnabout, especially since Clinton pivoted to this issue to escape other topics on which she's more moderate than Sanders. A casual observer could have come away from that debate thinking that Clinton was more liberal in general, and I bet that was exactly the goal. 

Recent developments in the race (Sanders' support in early-voting states, his resilience in national polls, and his consistent grassroots donor support) have forced Clinton to become more underhanded in her attacks. In the most recent debate, and also in stump speeches by her surrogates, Clinton has employed a hilariously brazen accusation: Bernie will ruin our healthcare system. She's claimed that his plan will repeal CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare in general. This is technically true, but a soupçon of critical thinking will show you that it's practically BS. Saying this is like saying that a person buying a new car will not be able to drive to work, because he no longer has his old car.

Much like in the debate, Hillary found a way to seem more liberal than her Socialist opponent. So, what is Bernie really trying to do?

Repeal and Replace

You've probably heard Republicans use that phrase a lot over the last five years, and it's effectively what Sanders is proposing. In short***, he wants to implement a single-payer healthcare system (meaning that government pays all the bills, and our current network of hundreds of private insurers would dissolve). This system would be similar to that of many European countries - countries that have much better health outcomes than the US and that also pay far less money per-capita for healthcare. I fully support a move to a single-payer system, but I'm very receptive to Clinton's specific critiques of Bernie's approach.

***In long(?), it isn't really clear what Sanders' plan would look like, as he has been vague about details.

Unfortunately, Clinton isn't approaching this problem with specific critiques. Instead, she's accusing Sanders of eliminating all of our current healthcare systems, without mentioning his proposed replacement plan. This approach trades on the ignorance of the voters, assuming they can't think clearly enough to understand the trick she's playing. This may very well be true! Voters have believed all kinds of crap before. It's unfortunate, though, that the Clinton campaign is telling a simple lie rather than a nuanced truth. One of her main arguments is that Sanders' approach could result in immediate doom, since it would open the door to non-participation from Republican governors in the same way that they rejected Medicaid expansion**** as part of Obamacare. This, and the legislative impossibility of passing sweeping reform without a congressional supermajority, mean that Sanders' plans are nothing but hot air. This is an argument supported by compelling facts; it's a shame that Clinton's campaign has chosen to advance it instead with deception. Still, this is another case where she managed to make Sanders look less liberal than she is.

****If you are a poor Republican without healthcare, in a state that didn't expand Medicaid, then you should seriously reconsider your voting choices in the 2016 election. 

Run to the Left

Between her legitimate focus on gun control, and her recent healthcare bomb, Clinton has been succeeding in out-flanking Bernie on the left. A third vector she's used has been to embrace Obama's record, and to hold herself up as the aegis that will defend his accomplishments.

Returning to a theme she presented in the first debate, "I'm a progressive, but I'm a progressive that likes to get things done", Clinton has emphasized that she has both the desire and the ability to uphold Obama's legacy. Instead of Sanders' grandiose dreams, Clinton will pursue concrete objectives and protect existing progress. Her basic argument here, and it's a persuasive one, is that the things she will actually achieve will do more for America than Sanders' doomed promises. This is a third distinct way in which Clinton is posturing herself on the left, and it has the benefit of matching what we've seen from Obama.

Wrapping Up

Hillary's approach here is nothing new in politics. Politicians have always manipulated facts to tell the story they want to tell, relying on the ignorance of the electorate to carry the day. We've got a huge problem with political disengagement, where most Americans (and many voters!) know next to nothing about the issues. This situation is ripe for abuse. Knowledge is your sword, and critical thinking your shield. 

What do you think? Are you turned off by some of these tactics, or do you figure that all is fair in politics? With the primaries rolling out over the next few months, where are you leaning?

Star Wars Episode 7: Best Movie of the Franchise - if my Hypothesis is Correct!

Major spoilers for Episode 7 await below, but by this point you should have seen the movie if you'd be bothered by such things. You'll note that this is both the first blog post in awhile (more on that some other time), and has nothing to do with politics. Happy New Year!

Episode 7 Summary

This post is not a review of the movie, but it helps to summarize and set things up. The main character, Rey, is a child of extraordinary abilities and mysterious parentage. Flashbacks establish that her parent(s) abandoned her on the backwater planet of Jakku when she was a child, around 8 years old. 

It's strongly suggested, both through her myriad abilities and her interactions with the movie's main antagonist (Kylo Ren), that she is somehow related to the major characters from the original Star Wars movies. It is also implied that she is not the daughter of Han or Leia, since they talk to her several times without letting on that she may be their daughter*. 

*Further, Han and Leia raised Kylo Ren, formerly named Ben Solo, to be a teenager. Why would they raise him but abandon their daughter?

I think the writers had fun hinting at possible false lineages for Rey, in the same way that they enjoyed the speculation that Kylo Ren was actually Luke Skywalker.

Criticism

While the movie got widely positive reviews, a subset of people on the internet complained that Rey was too great. I wasn't previously familiar with the term Mary Sue, but apparently this is a thing. Briefly, "Mary Sue" is a pejorative for a hyper-competent character, who enters an existing fictional universe to suddenly become a vital savior. Rey is a great pilot, mechanic, an instant study with a blaster pistol, and progresses her nascent Jedi abilities at an alarming rate. Some people on the internet were bothered by this, and saw it as evidence of runaway political correctness. I'm sure the Donald was outraged.

I, however, was not bothered by this at all! On the contrary, I think Rey's unbelievable abilities (she beat Kylo Ren in a lightsaber fight, and out-Force-pulled a lightsaber against the guy who previously stopped a laser beam in mid-air!) were the key plot point of the entire movie. I haven't seen any commentary to this effect on the internet, so this post will lack my usual bevy of links.

Absolute Power

I gave two examples of Rey's overpoweredness above, but there were many others. She invented the Jedi Mind Trick, having never seen it done before! We were told in the original Star Wars that "the Force (was) strong with Luke", but Rey did tricks in this movie that took Luke two or three movies to learn. I think this was all done for a reason: Rey is being set up to be the villain in this new trilogy. 

Coming to a theater near you, in May 2017

Power corrupts, and if you normalize by screen-time in the series, Rey is the most powerful character we've ever seen.

My Case

Welcome to the realm of speculation. I'll lay out what I think is the plot of this new trilogy, but most of this has absolutely no backing of evidence. 

• Rey, as some have speculated, is the daughter of Luke Skywalker. This preserves the tradition of the Skywalker family being the main characters in this series, and it echoes the "talented kid from a desert planet, with no parents, who goes on to be really important" vibe that the first two trilogies had going.
• We know that the Jedi have rules against marriage, and they certainly don't allow you to have kids. This is established in the prequels, but it's more thoroughly fleshed out in the now-non-canon Expanded Universe. The basic premise is that this promotes loyalty to the Jedi Order AND it prevents two Jedi from having super-powerful Jedi kids. The Light Side Jedi want to avoid super-powerful Jedi Kids (SPJK) because power leads to the Dark Side. The Dark Side Sith want to avoid SPJK because those kids would pose a threat to the parent Sith. 
• Despite all of this, the Luke of the abandoned Expanded Universe DID get married, and allowed his New Jedi Order to marry.
• I think Luke had Rey with some as-yet-unknown female Jedi, but later realized that this was a mistake. As was pointed out to me, maybe Yoda's ghost told him he was being dumb. Realizing this, Luke ditched Rey on Jakku, hoping she'd never figure out anything about the Force. Maybe he left Max von Sydow on Jakku to keep an eye on her, which would explain why Random Old Guy on Jakku has the critical piece of the map which points to the location of Luke Skywalker, Galactically Famous Jedi.
• I think what happens next is that Rey trains in the Force, but gives in to anger and falls to the Dark Side. You could sort've see a hint of this at the end of her duel with Kylo Ren, and it seemed that the rending of the planet's crust was the only thing that stopped her from killing Ren. I bet the next movie has her witness more horror, and she embraces the power offered by the Dark Side.

Let the hate flow through you!

• More meta-knowledge: Empire Strikes Back contained the massive "I am your father" twist. This plotline would set up a twist of equal magnitude for the second movie of this trilogy.
• Meanwhile, in Sith Land, this movie already established that Kylo Ren is being "tempted by the Light Side". This isn't a phrase we've heard before in Star Wars, hinting that something new is afoot. Ben Solo is the son of two of this franchise's biggest heroes, and I bet he gets tempted all the way back. 
• Ren was clearly portrayed as a Darth Vader fanboy, and he made hilarious and pathetic attempts to be just like his idol. This can't be a mistake of characterization. It does set up the revelation that he was just playing at being evil, even though it wasn't truly in his nature.
• This sets up a novel clash between Ben Solo and Rey, but inverting the roles we see in Episode 7. Ben gets to atone for killing Han, and has to overcome Rey's overwhelming abilities.

This plot may be far-fetched, but it has the virtues of being an actual new story in this universe, and of being way more interesting than a straight remake of Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

Best Movie Ever?

Many reviewers complained that Episode 7 was too-directly a remake of A New Hope. The plot had basically all of the same beats as the original movie, and ended basically the same way. Reviewers wrote this off as overly-enthusiastic fan service.

If my hypothesis is correct, then how much better does that make Episode 7? It will have planted all of the seeds of this plot, right out in the open, but their product will not be clear until the next movie. Rey's ridiculous Force abilities, rather than being this movie's biggest weakness, could set up a legendary narrative twist.

What do you think? Comment and share this article if you have anything to add!