In the realm of political discourse, some characters seem to have a knack for staying relevant, often without realizing they’re tearing down their own credibility. Enter stage left: Hillary Clinton. The former presidential candidate, perhaps best remembered for labeling a swath of America’s electorate as a “basket of deplorables,” recently urged a halt to the finger-pointing and demonizing tactics in politics. However, she also claimed that most of this negativity emanates from the right. It’s a classic tale of “do as I say, not as I do.”
Clinton’s comments came wrapped in the banner of wanting to foster legitimate debates based on facts and evidence. Yet, the irony wasn’t lost on anyone with a memory stretching back to her 2016 campaign. She once categorized Trump supporters as racist, sexist, and homophobic, among other unsavory descriptors. Such sweeping generalizations seem to clash spectacularly with her current calls for peace and civility in political discussions.
The media narrative quickly swooped in to remind us of Clinton’s penchant for dismissive commentary, especially against those she unsuccessfully courted for votes. She fancied the idea that Trump’s supporters require “deprogramming,” invoking an image of cultish loyalty to her political adversary. Oh, the sweet irony of a candidate who couldn’t secure her own Hollywood sequel, now critiquing others on their ability to dominate political discourse.
As political theater, her remarks were almost as entertaining as imagining her sharing a stage with another politically polarizing figure, Kamala Harris. The unspoken contest to alienate more voters with these kinds of remarks would be an event to behold. Perhaps Clinton fancies that pivoting to critique the dominance of white males will resurrect her status not just in the Democratic party but also on the national stage. But remember, Hillary, wasn’t it those same demographic dynamics that propelled your own rise to prominence?
A merry-go-round of irony twirls further as Clinton also pointed out the GOP’s success in arenas like social media and podcasting. Her admission hints at a grudging respect for their strategies, while neglecting the idea that any side, Democrats included, could similarly capitalize on these digital spaces. It’s not the platform; it’s the message. The 2020 election wasn’t bought on likes and shares; it was an issues-based decision made by the American people, who apparently weren’t lining up to subscribe to her channel of thought.
Amidst the rhetoric, the pressing issues of the day—the economy, immigration, and national security—are better shepherded by those offering clear, straightforward plans. Instead, voters are served a throwback menu of the greatest hits from sore-loser playlists, from Clinton’s bygone era. It’s like playing a 90s mixtape titled “What Could Have Been,” with Clinton crooning the same old tune, hoping for an encore that’s long past its expiration date. As the political winds shift, perhaps it’s time for those clinging to past grievances to take a cue from their own advice: to listen, reflect, and build a future guided not by finger-pointing, but by accountable leadership and genuine discourse.
