It is that she is a member of the Establishment, as is Barak Obama, all the Bushes (back to Prescott Bush), and Bill Clinton. That’s why none of them did anything good but instead damaged and destroyed. Had Mitt Romney got in, or John McCain, or Al Gore…nothing would have changed for the better since all are part of the Establishment.
I used a quote a few articles ago from Henry David Thoreau about how there are only two parties since the human race has been around: the party of “conservatism” and the party of “innovation.” He pretty much meant the Establishment and the Anti-Establishment. Both have been fighting each other since forever.
That’s not the only quote he had on the subject.
The last President we had who was sort of anti-Establishment was Ronald Reagan but he was only able to accomplishment a fraction of what he wanted – the bureaucratic Establishment was too much for him. Since then all the Presidents have been close to worthless – and many before him. Some of the Founding Fathers didn’t even want a President.
The economist Joseph Schumpeter was best-known for writing about the “creative destruction” of the free market. Long before him the Founding Fathers knew about the importance of political and economic freedom, although they got a lot of their economics from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Not to mention the Bible.
I favor the words “static” and “dynamic.” The governments tend toward being static and the free market is dynamic. That’s why the Founding Fathers wanted the smallest government necessary, so there would be as much liberty as possible – so people can “pursue happiness.”
The closer government is to the people, i.e. local, the faster it can respond to dynamic changes. The farther away it is (as in Washington D.C.) and bigger it is (as in Washington D.C.) the slower it can respond, because the bigger and slower it is the more static and Establishment it is.
Why is the Establishment so slow? It sure does seem to be about money and power. It always has been in the past. Members of the Establishment don’t want to give any of it up. We’re looking at all of the Seven Deadly Sins here.
We certainly do need some sort of “establishment” (but not that bureaucratic Establishment) to preserve those dynamic, innovative changes. Otherwise all would be chaos like a Phillip K. Dick novel.
Barak Obama got in by being Mr. Hope and Change. Boy was he a liar and a big dud! I don’t think he wanted any change at all, just to line his own pockets – just like the Bushes, just like the Clintons.
The history of the world, without exception, has been the Anti-Establishment people against the Establishment. It’s led to mass slaughter and societal collapse over and over and over.
The last time the U.S. had any sort of huge Anti-Establishment eruption was during the 1960s and that was because of the Establishment’s undeclared war in Vietnam. I was just a little kid but I saw the riots on TV – and God was it a mess! None of it seemed to be quite real to me, being that it was TV and I was so little. It was like watching a bad war movie.
The Establishment, as always, didn’t have a clue until it was too late. That’s its nature and will never change.
I have pretty high hopes for Trump because he is overwhelmingly anti-Establishment – which is a great thing (as I’ve said before, you can tell if someone is anti-Establishment if the Establishment unceasingly attacks him on all fronts, as is happening to Trump and which will not stop for the next eight years).
Of course, as I just mentioned, this kind of fight has been the history of the world. It’s never going to stop, either.
"There will be those dedicated to the organization itself." - Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy