What Hillary’s speech tells us

LARRY ANDERSON
Larry Anderson

When it comes to politics, we live in an age of non-specifics.

When I listened to Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the recent Republican convention, I kept waiting for a battle plan but heard nothing beyond a description of issues.

We all know what the issues are. How about a clear plan of action?

I assiduously avoided viewing Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Philly because I was confident there wouldn’t be anything new said, and when I sat down to read her speech online, my theory was validated.

Nothing fresh or interesting. Talking points over substance. No specific plan of action, only “I will do this…I will do that.”

But how will things get done, considering the shape we are in?

Politicians avoid the specifics because they don’t want to be held accountable nor do they wish to tip their hand to the opposition. This is understandable to an extent, but if we never learn how they propose to deliver, then how will voters ever know for whom they are really voting?

A case in point: Barack Obama, a redistributionist and a socialist. Many did not know who he was or what he was. Still don’t.

Let’s take a look at some points in Clinton’s speech with the aforementioned in mind.

Here’s what Hillary said early in her speech regarding her opponent for the nomination, the luckless Bernie Sanders: “…I want you to know I’ve heard you. Your cause is our cause.”

Well, there you are. During the elimination process, Bernie was all wrong, but after the votes were counted, Hillary and Bernie were in love. How can one take them seriously when their differences so quickly and seamlessly merge?

At least Hillary mentioned the Founders, something Obama managed to avoid for nearly eight years. Hillary said, “…they began listening to each other, compromising, finding common purpose.”

Now, you can believe that is a route Clinton will follow if you want, but the Left does not compromise or seek common ground. It has been that way for years. I cite Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Clinton as the opposite of that description.

Liberals’ idea of compromise is when everyone does as they demand, or order, as the case may be.

Said Hillary, “We have to decide whether we will all work together so we can rise together.”

This is a recurring liberal theme and seems harmless, but it speaks simplistically to liberals love of sameness. The remark is more social in intent than individualistic in opportunity or freedom.

Clinton detests Donald Trump and offered this scenic bit: “We will not build a wall; instead we will build an economy where everyone who wants a good job can get one. And we’ll build a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants who are already contributing to our economy.”

What a load! Of course, building a wall metaphorically refers to Trump’s legitimate solution regarding illegal immigration. Clinton didn’t say how she will build that wonderful economy in light of Obama’s anemic success in that area nor did she use the word “illegal” before “immigrants.” She didn’t acknowledge said immigrants broke our laws to come here and have put incredible pressure on our economic and social system unfairly.

Clinton stuck to liberal themes throughout her comments:

“There’s too much inequality, too little social mobility, too much paralysis in Washington.”

Really? Even after eight years of Obama and thyself?

Of course none of those problems are the fault of liberals.

“None of us can raise a family, build a business, heal a community, or lift a country totally alone.”

This is the tiresome lecture on “It takes a village.” Seriously, is there anyone out there who doesn’t know a business has to have customers to thrive? Name one time when Americans haven’t pitched in during a crisis.

Says she: “A country where the economy works for everyone, not just those at the top.”

This is the same ol’ tirade against a capitalist system that has worked pretty darn well for Hillary, her family, and her pals on Wall Street. This has to do with the liberals’ notion that there is only equality if everyone has the same income. It is a socialist principle that doesn‘t work.

Here is a quote that really got me: “Let’s build a better tomorrow for our beloved children…”

By “beloved children” Clinton surely means those who were spared the abortion she so richly advocates as “choice.”

How can one be pro-abortion and pro-child simultaneously?

Only a liberal can do that. Only a liberal can fail to understand the hypocrisy of Clinton’s remark.