Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Which side is Hillary on?

Posted by Charles II on March 8, 2010

I’ve written about how Hillary seems to have sided with the most retrogressive forces in supporting the Honduras coup. I had ascribed that to her DLC leanings.

But as I read Jeff Sharlet’s The Family, I begin to wonder whether she is not part of it. For those who are not familiar with The Family, it was established to influence political, religious and financial leaders. Nominally fundamentalist Christian, it has embraced dictators and unrepentant criminals of all stripes, from Charles Colson of Watergate fame to Indonesia’s mass murderer, Suharto, to Siad Barre, the butcher of Somalia, whose shipwreck of that country was the precursor to the pirates attacking American shipping today. The Family has no trouble with non-Christians like Suharto: it imagines that it is working God’s will through their crimes. And The Family is mainstream. It runs a number of members of Congress, including Bart Stupak, who is presently single-handedly denying American health insurance knowing that thousands will die as a result.

There is plenty of material in Sharlet’s book to lend credence to the view that Hillary Clinton is under the sway of The Family, although the careful nuance Sharlet provides makes it clear that she is almost certainly not in the inner group. However, neither does she seem to be an opportunist who simply uses political contacts in The Family for her own ends. Instead, she seems to be one of those many benighted people who believes that God gives power to people because He approves of their actions… and thereby gradually becomes corrupted. A couple of excerpts:

The Family works through the men and women who we put in power. Sam Brownback. Hillary Clinton. Pick your poison. In the calculus of party politics, these two do occupy distant coordinates, but in the geometry of power politics, the Family knows, they are on the same plane, and the distance between them is shrinking. They mean well, both of them, and I’m more partial to the views of one of them, but I can’t help looking at that narrowing spectrum and wondering, This is an awful tight space in which to fit a democracy. (p. 284)

Hillary may well be God’s beautiful child, but she’s not a member of Coe’s Family. Rather, I’ve been told at Ivanwald, she’s a “friend,” less elect than a member, but more chosen than the rest of us. A fellow traveler but not a sister. Her goals are not their goals; but when on occasion they coincide, Hillary and the Family can work together…. The theology of Jesus plus nothing [but lacking any of the teachings of Jesus and the Church] is totalitarian in scope, but diplomatic in practice. It doesn’t conquer, it “infects,”…. (p. 272)

“Infected” seems like a good description of US Honduras policy.

2 Responses to “Which side is Hillary on?”

  1. Stormcrow said

    It doesn’t conquer, it “infects,”…

    Remember when I was talking about contagious mental illness?

    Yup. This was one of the phenomena I was referring to. One out of many.

  2. This is essentially Calvinism on steroids.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: