So WHY Do the Democrats Need to Rig Their System

Yesterday -- and often -- I have written about how hard it must be to be a liberal, to have to reconcile the dozens of politically correct positions which ultimately have to conflict.  They have to conflict, of course, because there is only a finite amount of OTM to go around (that's "other people's money") and socialism dies when that runs out.

I often think -- and see -- that liberals simply chuckle "ha-ha", in a Hillary Clinton cocked-head laugh, and avoid the question entirely when any liberal incongruity is raised.  When it is pointed out, as I did yesterday, that open borders (advocated by the left) dump labor on the American market and depress job opportunities for (particularly) black unemployed, the liberal chuckles and turns to the $15 minimum wage as a solution to everything, and then hustles off to his ivory tower to go help someone else the wrong way, who didn't need it in the first place.

Similarly, the liberal would be hard-pressed to explain reconciling his adoration of the rights of women and gay people, when trying to defend radical Islam (if, unlike the current president, he will actually even use the term).  That is challenging given the way women are radically repressed in Muslim countries, and gay people killed there, simply for being gay.  You have to change the subject really quickly, because there is simply no acceptable reconciliation.

Deflection of that kind is an art form.  When we remember that it is always about power, and then about money, and whatever is third is far behind, it makes sense that those who can deflect the masses from facts, history, reality and logic become the heroes of the left.

I pondered that this morning on the old recumbent bike, when on TV there was a discussion of the two parties' approaches to accumulating delegates to the upcoming Democrat and Republican conventions.  It is patently obvious that, while the Republican model as practiced in Colorado was something flagrantly undemocratic, the Democrats' model for the whole country is simply heinous. I refer to the odd notion of granting a huge percentage of the delegate seats -- and votes -- to unelected party officials called "super-delegates."

Why, I asked myself, was it so important for the Democrats to implement the super-delegate concept, and particularly, why was it implemented in such a way that the will of the people was essentially crushed from the start?  It is no secret that for 2016 the approach was designed to ensure that Hillary Clinton was the nominee of the party, at least if she is not in prison by then.  The party clearly did not want anyone else nominated.

Think of it this way -- had Hillary been in prison a year ago, who would the Democrats' lead candidate have even been?  The secondary ("down-ballot") races, since Barack Obama was first elected, have been so bad for Democrats that there has been no person who has risen to political stardom on their side, because the country has rejected their socialist approach.  No, it had to be Hillary.

All that stuff made me wonder "well, why Hillary?".  Why was it so important that such a flawed, unlikable, unpleasant candidate be nominated?  And I think the above gave me the answer.

The chief attribute necessary for the leader of the Democrats' ticket is not good looks, and it certainly is not a workable approach to economics.  No, the most important criterion for the Democrats in 2016, as it may be for decades to come, is the ability to deflect.  And no one deflects any better than Hillary Clinton.

Here is a person who literally planned deflection on the day her confirmation hearings for Secretary of State began, by setting up a private and illegal email server so that her communication of actual feelings would be shielded from inquisitive FOIA requests.  She is a master at not answering questions, even though the press just lobs softballs at her with depressing regularity as it is.

And that, dear readers, is a necessary skill when you are running with a platform full of things that simply don't work, and invariably make situations worse than before they were tried.  You cannot talk issues with a Democrat and ever get a straight answer, so the Democrats need to run a candidate who can deflect that reality, and turn straight to something that feels good to hear, even if it wasn't close to the answer of the question that was asked.

So it was vitally important to party bosses that the ultimate candidate be someone who can deflect his (or her) remaining brains out.  Many months back they decided that only Hillary could deliver the party orthodoxy without confronting actual facts.  She had to be nominated, and even though the party probably did not consider the possibility of the success of the actual Bernie Sanders campaign, they were astute enough to prevent anything like that, long in advance.

Will that succeed?  Well, given that, absent the super-delegates, this would have been one heck of a race (my Lord, but Hillary must be an atrocious candidate not to have put away the old socialist by now), their approach has succeeded to date, and will ultimately make her the candidate of the Democrats (if she is not in prison).  But I do finally understand why it was so important to make her win the nomination.  Deflection from the truth, from reality, from history, from logic, is a learned skill.

The Democrats simply could not afford to have someone run for president who could possibly be trapped if the press actually asked an incisive question.  That could cramp liberalism for years.

Nope, it had to be Hillary and, to them, it was worth corrupting the entire primary and caucus process by imposing super-delegates loyal to the party's almighty choice, to do so.  Ask the Democrats' party chairman about the super-delegates, and darned if she won't go straight into deflection mode too.  Hillary has deflected right through the primary season and will do so as long as there is a campaign.

They needed her, because she knows how not to answer a question.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.