Last week, a phrase uttered on MSKGB (I mean, MSNBC) revealed more about the selfish ambitions of the Left than volumes of type in the N.Y. Times. Activist Ronan Farrow said of the Clintons: “I think that they represent a style of honesty that the public craves.” Only 25 years old, Farrow served in the Obama administration for a time under Hillary Clinton, where he doubtless learned the definition of honesty.
What is this ‘style of honesty’? And is it what the public ‘craves?’
Advertisement – story continues below
In context, the MSLSD conversation was about the glorious 90s when Clinton shifted positions frequently, even on big topics like the definition of marriage, his own, and everyone else’s. Farrow was explaining to us how ‘nimble’ the Clintons were and are to this day, as they evolve into more radicalism. Nimble indeed.
It reminds one of the poignant statement by Bill in 1998 when asked if he had been intern-intimate: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is.” They call him “Slick Willie” for more than one reason. ClintonSpeak was best illustrated by Bill in redirecting the question about his Lewinsky lies when he redefined the word ‘is.’ It was called brilliant and very stylish by some. This style of honesty (i.e. lying with flare and flourish) is the mark of genius in Leftist circles. Never mind that Bill was eventually indicted for lying to a grand jury, impeached, and disbarred.
It is the same kind of honesty that sent Nixon to retirement behind a resignation. If only Nixon had lied with style. If not for ‘if,’ cow mature would be milk too.
One supposes that the style of honesty we crave is the kind of lying that makes us feel better about being deceived, such as the current explanation that people can keep their health insurance if only evil insurance companies weren’t so cruel (and if only evil Republicans weren’t so obstructionist.) Just remember: insurance policy cancellations have nothing to do with the Patient Protection Act, understood?
Advertisement – story continues below
Like everything on the Left, honesty is a matter of taste, emotion, and partisan orientation. If it is Left and Cool (one and the same), it floats; if not, it sinks. It’s all subjective, individual to individual, until they reach collective morality. The truth test is only a matter of seeing if ‘truth’ fits the template. If not, well, it’s out of style and therefore untrue. It is a matter of taking moral relativism to absurd heights, to the point of expunging the word ‘absolute.’
Perhaps we do crave this mind-bending incoherence. After all, we re-elected the penultimate Honesty Stylist—-Mr. Obama—a man’s whose assurances come with so many exceptions that his ‘period’ never ends a sentence. “You can keep your doctor….period. You can keep your plan…period.“
Enough about Obama’s style of honesty. We’ve neglected Hillary’s style a bit.
Did women ‘crave’ Hillary’s style of honesty for years when she assured us that her husband was no womanizer. Did we ‘crave’ her style of honesty when it turned out he was a rapist? Don’t forget that Hillary was fired from the Watergate investigative committee for fraud and unethical behavior. She must have lacked style back then, as when she destroyed careers trying to hand over the White House Travel Office to a crony. Do we even have to remind you of Benghazi? After all, what difference does it make?
Politicos know it does not matter what you say, so much as how you say it; style trumps substance in the age of incoherence. To our shame, we accommodate these people, showing that we no longer have any use for Honest Abe or George “I cannot tell a lie” Washington. Perhaps in a year, we’ll correct course, electing real people with real honesty and style.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.