Some people think Hillary Clinton and her now faltering husband Bill, both products of the Silly Sixties (SS), are too Machiavellian for their own good. Others think Mrs. Clinton has never shed her admiration for Saul Alinsky, the political guru of the SS and author of “Rules for Radicals," whose own ideal of a perfect political and social radical was Lucifer, AKA The Devil, to whom Mr. Alinsky dedicated his hand-book on cultural destruction.
A senior at Wellesley College, Mrs. Clinton wrote a 92 page thesis on Mr. Alinsky. Later at Yale, a nursery bed for U.S. politicians and presidents in the modern age, Mrs. Clinton bent her knee to the radicalism of the day and, some think, began plotting an unobstructed path to the presidency. It’s been a long slog. Her meandering but methodical course has led through hubby Bill, past a few bimboes, through the Secretary of State office by way of the U.S. Senate, over the smoldering ruins of Benghazi, over the prostrate body of Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders, and now over Donald Trump, real estate mogul and womanizer, like Mrs. Clinton’s husband, Bill.
Lust, the most deadening of the seven deadly sins, takes many forms: Those who lust after money become rich, if fortune smiles upon them; those who lust after fame become poisonously self-infatuated Hollywood stars and starlets, if the money-men of Hollywood take them to their flinty little hearts, not to mention their beds; and those who lust after power become politicians. The lusts of the Clintons are manifold.
Still others think Mrs. Clinton is two-faced. Among these is Mrs. Clinton herself.
Before grinding Mr. Sanders under her Primary heels, Mrs. Clinton was, as the hapless socialist supposed, making cooing noises in the direction of Mr. Sanders’ principal enemies, bankers and financiers stuffed with money, which they happily threw at Mrs. Clinton for speeches worth about half a million a pop. What she said to the One-Percenters in those private talks was top secret – more top secret even than the top, top secret data she shared with the world through her unprotected private server.
But alas, in the age of Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, and Guccifer, who may or may not be a Russian intelligence officer – there are few secrets anymore. And so, thanks to a leaky, Luciferian internet, we now have Mrs. Clinton’s speeches to First World redundantly rich bankers. True, the cache of secret speeches was released too late for poor Bernie, but such is Alinskyism.
Mrs. Clinton likes deep-pocket millionaires and financiers pretty much in the way Willie Sutton liked banks. Unsurprisingly, the Clintons are human, all too human, riddled through and through with lust for power, fame and money. Who would not like the rich uncle who continually throws thousand dollar bills at your feet and – this is important – generously finances both your private cash cow, the Clinton Foundation, and your tortuous path to the White House?
The bankers saw Mrs. Clinton veering dangerously in the direction of a quasi-socialist utopia and wondered whether there would be a place in Clintonworld for Wall Street speculators and usurers. Mrs. Clinton’s assurances were comforting enough to keep the money pipeline open. To be sure, she had said things about banks and free trade and usury in the course of her campaign that might seem untoward to the bankers, but – don’t you know – Mrs. Clinton’s public utterances in the course of a campaign in which she was forced to put on a false face to fend off a blinkered socialist should have been taken by the bankers, as Mark Twain once said, with a ton of salt. There are two Mrs. Clintons: a private and a public persona; the bankers would be financing the private Mrs. Clinton, the one whose tongue was not forked like Alinsky’s Lucifer.
When Mr. Trump picked up on her split-persona during the second debate, Mrs. Clinton wandered into a discussion of Abe Lincoln’s sometimes necessarily complex polity, causing Mr. Trump to spurt that the lady had unnecessarily dragged Honest Abe into a tangled mare’s nest of her own making.
Actually, Steven Douglas, Mr. Lincoln’s Democratic opponent during the celebrated Lincoln-Douglas debates did accuse Mr. Lincoln of being two-faced, to which Mr. Lincoln replied, "Honestly, if I were two-faced, would I be showing you this one?" Mr. Lincoln, no Hollywood star, continually poked fun at his own appearance.
Unlike Andy Jackson, a formidable foe of a national bank, Lincoln, from his very first published speech in 1837 – on the First State Bank, as it happened – maintained an unchanging view that strong banks and a reliable, flexible currency, under reasonable supervision by the federal government, were essential to economic opportunity. Two years later, in a widely circulated speech, Lincoln argued strongly against the Jacksonian sub-treasury system set up in place of the National Bank: “The [National] Bank was permitted to, and did actually loan [public revenues] out to individuals, and hence the large amount of money annually collected for revenue purposes, which by any other plan would have been idle a great portion of time, was kept almost constantly in circulation. Any person . . . will reflect, that money is only valuable while in circulation, [and] any device which will keep the government revenues, in constant circulation, instead of being locked up in idleness, is no inconsiderable advantage.”
Lincoln preferred a banking system in which money flowed unimpeded into the private marketplace and was not “locked up in idleness” by a government intent on capturing and holding in reserve the wealth of the nation, which is useful only when it is widely circulated through a free market system that is very nearly the opposite of the crony capitalism idol worshiped by modern progressives.
In the matter of banking, Mr. Lincoln wore but one face, sending to Congress a quarter century later a message we too often have not heeded: “. . . it is peculiarly the duty of the national government to secure to the people a sound circulating medium . . . furnish[ing] to the people a currency as safe as their own government."
Whether the modern world has kept faith with Mr. Lincoln’s view is a question for another day. It will be impossible to tell whether Mrs. Clinton is a free marketer or a crony capitalist facilitator so long as she is pleased to wear two faces, one for political manipulation and an opposite face reflecting her private and genuine intentions. In the meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton’s entire campaign should have posted under it a content warning, somewhat like the messages one sees on medication: “Warning to bankers, socialists, Luciferian Alinskyites, Democrats and Republicans – do not exceed recommended dosage.” So long as Mrs. Clinton is content to wear multiple faces, the public must and should be on its guard against her.