Hillary Compares Outsourcing to the Holocaust
- 04.28.2008 - 12:01 PMIn what may be the most appalling rhetorical gambit of her political career, and perhaps the worst of any candidate this entire campaign season, Hillary Clinton yesterday effectively analogized the loss of American jobs to the destruction of the Jews:
At the union hall in Gary, she grew so animated in describing the plight of old-line industrial workers that she described them in language from the oft-repeated poem, attributed to the German pastor Martin Niemöller, about the victims of Nazism. “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist,” goes the version inscribed on a wall at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. After coming for the trade unionists, it continues, “they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.”
In Mrs. Clinton’s version, she intoned: “They came for the steel companies and nobody said anything. They came for the auto companies and nobody said anything. They came for the office companies, people who did white-collar service jobs, and no one said anything. And they came for the professional jobs that could be outsourced, and nobody said anything.”
“So this is not just about steel,” she finished.
I guess, following the logic here, that “the loss of professional jobs that could be outsourced” is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust, then. Is everybody really OK with this?
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
April 28th, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Hillary Clinton’s economically illiterate comments regarding economics are a harsh reminder of the level of stupidity of our “elite” class. Never forget that she attended Yale University—and obviously obtained a second rate education. These people are often truly dumb. We morally and logically have every right to treat graduates of Yale as idiots until proven otherwise. Also, don’t forget that Paul DeMan
was a member of the Yale faculty.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:33 PM
By David’s logic, our dear President Bush, a graduate of Yale, also received a second rate education. His father, a Yale graduate, also received a second rate education. Let us not forget that Messr. Dr. Paul DeMan was also on the Yale faculty, etc. etc. etc.
There is nothing recommending a Yale education. It must be the stupidity of the “elite class” that sends its children to Yale–to graduate illiterate and stupid and able to scale the ramparts to high office and public prominence. The “elite class” has simply lost its bearings and its children have lost their way.
The primary election campaigns are vastly too long–looks like all the candidates are running out of steam, as are the commentarians.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I just want to know who “they” is.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:47 PM
“By David’s logic, our dear President Bush, a graduate of Yale, also received a second rate education.”
Yup, I most certainly do believe that both Bush senior and junior were damaged by attending Yale and Harvard. This is where they learned to favor big government solutions and embrace the silliness of the Ripon Republican class. George W. Bush most assuredly became a global warming whack job because it represents the thinking of the “elite” class. This is another reason why Americans should think twice about voting for “Barry” Obama. He may be a quintessential example of how Harvard corrupts the thinking process of too many of its graduates.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:56 PM
The Ivy league schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia have been getting away their nonsense for decades. They had the money and power to destroy those who dared get in the way of their left-wing agenda. The Internet is changing everything. Take a look at what is happening to MSM
institutions like the New York Times and NBC. The same is now going to occur to the “elite” academic institutions.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:07 PM
I went to Columbia, so I can’t enter this part of the discussion, but getting back to the point of the post–does Hillary really explicitly compare outsourcing to the Holocaust? Or is she merely using a popular and powerful metaphor to make a point? I have no great regard for Hillary Clinton the politician, but in this case I think the criticism is going a bit far.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Honestly, I suspect Hillary was just being tin-eared, and doesn’t realize — at least at the front of her working consciousness — that the “They came for…” series is a reflection on the Holocaust. The rhetorical device it uses is now much, much better known than the actual content. Hillary is very white, mainline Protestant middle-class in that way. (Being a white, evangelical Christian, I recognize the type — as Bill Buckley said of liberals, even if they’re hiding behind the potted plant.) Hillary’s enough of a politician that I seriously doubt she intended to commit a clueless, ivory-tower-academic Obamanation here.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:12 PM
One of Lady Macbeth’s great weaknesses is her political “tin ear.” (Remember the comment in New York about “overseers and plantations” with regard to the Republican-ruled House?) This is just one more striking example.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:22 PM
She was tired and misspoke will be the predictable excuse.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I agree with JE Dyer - I think she has no idea how that came off. With no specific mention of Jews or Nazism I don’t think it’s as bad as you make it out to be.
More importantly is Seth’s comment - Who are they?