December 11th, 2015,
By: Joaquin Flores, for Fort Russ and The Greanville Post -
Faced with the very serious problem of being simultaneously widely despised, and yet entitled to be the next President of the United States, Clinton's superiors and handlers devised a brilliant strategy. Let's have Hillary run against Trump, the only human being in the US who fulfills the two most important roles for her: makes her look better by comparison, and scares voters into voting.
Hillary Clinton is your standard Zionist, pro-War, pro-Empire, Russophobic, austerity candidate. These are expected positions for, what has long been considered, any realistic candidate in the American system to be electable. Except for the problem that she's extraordinarily unlikable, which actually makes her unelectable. Yet oddly - while she's an overachiever - thanks to consultants and other people paid to be honest, she's somewhat aware of this tiny image problem. Imagine yourself as the guy or gal whose job it is to lay out the ugly truth for Clinton, and you'll instantly understand the enormity of that task, and also why Clinton believes she's a better person for 'admitting' this problem privately, and tackling it head-on.
Now there are quite a few well-known tricks in politicking, and a few of these are all about 'image'. Yes, you look at your opponent and their image, and you find that it's based on how they look and act, and other things they represent - mind you, not their positions, but what they 'represent', their 'image': a whole array of non-verbal, non-textual and socially-based cues. Then you contrast yourself to that. You want to contrast your image on those things which you think makes you shine, and either creates that 'halo' effect around you, or makes the other person look like Satan. This much is pretty basic, and we all get this.
When it comes to issues, well in America really these are much less important in politics than symbolic representation. Now activists and policy wonks may not agree with this, because in their religion, all voters are actually passionate about abortion, global warming, immigration, the new Cold War and other things that possibly matter. But the reality is that they are a slim minority who are essentially just pawns in the early stage of an election, the part where you mobilize the base. After that, it's all just 'feelings', posturing, and tossing around slogans and key phrases, which are rarely backed by actual policies or real plans.
The key to Obama's success was in understanding this fact. But issues can sort of relate to what you represent, so it is important at times to mutter a few things that basically gesture in the direction of your image. Also, your image serves as a substitute for having to say anything on the issues that sort of seem to relate to your image, but sometimes it's okay to vaguely reference the thing that the character you're playing might actually say in real life.
So long as it isn't too definitive or something you can be held to account for later on, you're in the clear. Look, it works just like casting. If you aren't a good writer, say you are George Lucas, and you need a villain, you just cast someone who looks ... well, villainous! That saves you the trouble of actually having to flesh out and develop the character. You just use these short cuts and appeal directly to the base expectations of the lowest common denominator.
So, image is very important, and human beings - as social beings - have an image and a meaning only in contrast to the world and to other human beings. That's one thing that makes elections - popularity contests - such a human thing indeed. The issues aren't very important, you can have them, you can change them, you can explain your changes, but mostly voters can't remember what they were or how they changed anyways. What is extremely difficult to change, and what probably will never change, is your image. Now to be clear, there is just one single way that an image can change, and that is through a very convincing, very public, but not too drawn-out repentance.
If your opponent is actually right or close to right in messaging on certain 'issues', then - if time is on your side and nothing is urgent - you let them play out the discourse on that issue, get a read on the feedback and the most popular criticisms of that position, and then stake out a position which says all the popular things of your opponent, but also includes the criticism. It doesn't matter if it’s contradictory. Voters who are really into the whole voting thing really just project their hopes and fears onto a candidate, so naturally they will just filter out those things and just hear the things they want to hear anyway. It's a wonderful thing, and it's a problem that solves itself.
Democrats start the game with a certain advantage, which is that there are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans. The real problem comes when we realize that Democrats are slightly less likely to vote, and are slightly more likely to vote for a Republican in the case that they prefer them.
This means that a Democrat candidate has to work on 'GOTV' (get out the vote) and making sure that they contrast their image, and positions, in such a way that speaks to the hearts of these luke-warm Democrat swing voters. To turn out the vote, you can't just have a center candidate running against a center candidate. And, you can't have a basically decent person running against a basically decent person. Nothing is at stake in that case. No one really cares too much. For a lot of really funny reasons that aren't at all actually related to the historical record, Republicans carry with them this sort of aura of "fiscal responsibility", which voters interpret as lower taxes and prudent decision-making - and so all other things being equal, this normally turns things for Republicans, and a few Democrats just sit it out.
Therefore every winning Democrat election which reaches beyond the local, practical issues, has to be large in scope, it has to be historic and symbolic, representative and - yes - the most important election in your lifetime. It has to be larger than life. It must encapsulate the struggle of 'democracy against fascism', of good vs. evil, that really fires people up to vote.
Obama ran on 'hope', and through his image voters were able to find redemption for their racist sins, cleanse the country of its shameful history of slavery, to make a real change and dream the dream of MLK; they could partake in communion and drink of the blood and eat of the flesh of this great savior of American humanity. Voters were 'fired up!' for Obama.
Clinton does not possess these fantastic traits, so she has to come up with something. Now, there is probably something even stronger than hope, and it's a function of the oldest part of the brain, the amygdala. It controls the famous four F's. Two of these are immediate fear based instincts - fighting and fleeing. So without hope, you have 'fear' to campaign on. From an evolutionary perspective, it's very simple. You can hope for something, but if you fail to respond to your hopes, you are still where you are - nothing gained, nothing lost. But if you fail to respond to your fears, you may not survive to ever 'hope' for anything ever again. So fear is a stronger instinct than hope. We are probably just wired that way. It should probably be mentioned that some Obama voters were probably also motivated by fear, not fear of the other candidate, but a fear of being considered racist, reactionary, and well, simply behind the times.
But people are genuinely afraid of Clinton. Besides her cackles and sneers, besides her image as an arrogant, sociopathic, spiteful and selfish, power-mad person, people are just genuinely afraid of her. It goes beyond the trail of dead bodies behind her that started to pile up in Arkansas in the 80's. It even goes beyond her direct and very personal murdering of one of the greatest African leaders in the history of the world. It's more than her willingness to bring about a nuclear Armageddon in a confrontation with Russia.
It's more than this. She provokes this instinctual response in people. It's a part of her essence that just oozes from every pore. It's an inseparable part of her existence on this temporal plane. Clinton has simply incarnated on Earth in this way.
The woman card is actually not going to play well for Clinton, it never has. She possesses actually not one of the qualities that make female candidates generally likable. And in general, it's not an issue. While the US has never had a woman president, it's old hat in the rest of the world. It's nothing at all like the first black president - which would be in France like having a French Algerian win the race. But we've already had our Thatchers, Kirchners, and Merkels and so on. It's no big deal.
So Clinton cannot really run as Clinton, she has to just be as unremarkable and inoffensive as possible during this election; she has to be the person that those wishy-washy democrat voters will turn out for, because there is a much greater and far more evil danger if they do not. Enter Donald Trump.
Thank God for focus groups. When shown a photo of Hillary Clinton, respondents were no doubt asked: what are the first six words that come to mind? Arrogance, Sociopathy, Entitlement, Greed, Soullessness, Selfishness.
In these focus groups another thing was discovered: when Clinton was compared to any potential Republican candidate, including Newt 'The Grinch' Gingrich and Jeb 'Dynasty' Bush, Clinton came out on the bottom. This happened with everyone except when they compared her to Michael Douglas's character from Wall Street spliced with Darth Vader.
This is a giant hurdle. Her goal then is to make this election about voting against Trump, not voting for Clinton per se. It's more than the lesser of two evils - it's the idea of villanizing Trump (by just letting Trump play the role, mostly based on his own real life character) to such an extent that we actually forget who Clinton is, what she has done, that she is a murderer and war criminal, and that across the political spectrum from left-to-right, we all basically despise what she represents, and who she is, in a deep and profound way.
So this campaign must focus on the real and sheer danger that Donald Trump represents. Now of course it’s clear that he's actually going to excite and motivate some real grass roots and populist elements of the Republican Party, and with some of his foreign policy 'gestures', he's also going to pick up some of the Ron Paul crowd too. But remember for Clinton this is about just two types of voters, both of which are already Democrats: Democrats who wouldn't otherwise turn out to vote, and Democrats who are sometimes prone to vote for a Republican. If nearly all Democrats vote, and if nearly all Democrats who vote indeed vote for the Democrat candidate - then, presto-change-o - Clinton is your president.
For this to work, conclusively and indisputably, Donald Trump must fulfill two important roles: first his image must contrast to Clintons so that all of her worst image traits: arrogance, sociopathy, entitlement, greed, soullessness, selfishness -- are in fact transferred into him. Second: these passive, standing traits must be transformed into a platform of action, one that we must all be terribly afraid of. We must see Trump as Bush on steroids, and prepared to destroy life on earth. Trump must compel voters to run out of fear to the voting booths and poke the chads for Clinton.
Let's be real.
Political campaigns are both an art and a science. In the US, they are also highly corrupt and - okay painfully naive people may just not want to read further (spoiler alert!) - the whole thing is basically staged and a set-up. Most of the time, both candidates from the 'two' (actually one) parties are carefully vetted by the important power elite groups - what the hard left calls the 'capitalist class', and what the radical right calls 'globalists' and 'banksters' (oh yes and 'the jooz') - ranging from the military industrial complex, to the Zionists, the CFR, the Bilderberg group, Wall Street and the 'too big to fail', even the old Trilateral Commission has a say.
No matter who wins, domestic and foreign policy will be about the same, and life goes on. America's complex and problematic, unsolvable issues of class and race will continue to eat away at the inside, while its disastrous foreign policy and the global de-dollarization process will weaken the dollar and reduce the scope and authority of the US as a 'global leader'. Sometimes these power elite groups, for bigger narrative reasons important to the overall script of the 'America story' will all get behind one candidate beforehand. That was probably the case actually with most of the presidents in the last three decades, at least with Reagan, Bill Clinton, Bush and Obama. If the 'slated to lose' candidate - who is absolutely safe and vetted, but not 'right' for the 'America story' script at this time - looks like they have bucked the media campaign and the smear efforts and just may take it on election day itself, then Diebold will produce an undoubtedly beautiful array of anomalies that will bestow victory onto the chosen candidate.
Trump is not entirely an idiot and rather displays some strong innate abilities, moments of good intuition about human nature, and in part of his own thinking, he's perhaps hoping to use this deal with Clinton - oh, did I forget to mention that this is a deal between them? - to leverage himself to an actual position to win. It definitely places him big-time in politics, a place he's never really been before.
[note: this was originally written for TGP but due to technical difficulties being experienced at our sister site, we have decided to publish here.]