The One Tactic That Makes Hillary The Perfect Candidate For The Cultural Left

REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

Scott Greer Contributor
Font Size:

Hillary Clinton has a funny way of stating her positions on Twitter.

Namely, she has a tendency to spell out “Period” at the end of various declarations.

Generally a language technique more fit for the movies than the campaign trail, it’s used to tell listeners that no further discussion of a topic is welcome. The speaker has decided that the issue has long been settled and there is only one correct way of interpreting it.

Needless to say, spelling out “period” is an arrogant, condescending and insufferable way of discussing important matters. Anyone who adopts the style comes across as an overbearing kindergarten teacher lecturing her students on the importance of washing their hands.

But, surprisingly enough, it’s a communication style perfectly suited for Clinton’s campaign. Hillary is trying to fend off assumptions that she’s not sufficiently progressive, so she’s adopting a tone that’s 100 percent typical of the modern-day leftist.

If you read any left-leaning publication, you’ll learn how views that differ from the liberal orthodoxy are not simply wrong — they are immorally wrong. Even discussing how an opposing viewpoint is wrong is not worth the time because it is [insert current year]. Sites like The Huffington Post and mic.com revel in publishing finger-wagging lectures masquerading as sober analyses of important topics.

For example, mic’s very important take on the catalysmic problem of “manspreading”: “13 Absurd Reasons ‘Manspreaders’ Use to Defend Their Right to Spread on the Subway.”

Besides citing the present year for why a certain position is wrong, other argument techniques include saying a foe is on the “wrong side of history” and declaring, in exasperation, “Wow. Just wow” when confronted with the unbearable offensiveness of a particular comment.

Discussion is not wanted as the issue — be it same-sex marriage or equal pay — has already been settled. It’s just up to those reactionary Republicans to get on that clearly discernible right side of history.

The interesting thing about Hillary adopting this tactic is how she was on “the wrong side of history” only a few years ago. In 2008, she ran on a platform that included opposition to gay marriage — a cornerstone of those LGBT rights she likes to talk up this election cycle. Clinton even said in 2004 that traditional marriage was a “fundamental bedrock principle” that must be preserved.

However, she did not spell out “period” at the end of that statement, so maybe that was a sign that it was subject to change. Now, of course, there is no conscionable reason for opposing gay marriage. Ms. Clinton says so. Period.

But the issue Hillary wishes the most she could wish away with an “end of discussion” declaration doesn’t relate to social trends or metaphorical sides of history — it’s her sketchy email use. Unfortunately for Hillary, the FBI seems immune from pleas that the issue has already been resolved by an expertly crafted talking point. (RELATED: Hillary Supporters Use Exact Same Talking Point After Her ‘Meet The Press’ Interview)

In this campaign, Clinton is much more culturally left than she was in 2008 — as evidenced by the stern switch on gay marriage. In Tuesday’s debate, she actually attacked Bernie Sanders from the left on the issue of gun control. The frontrunner immediately went into lecture mode as she explained to Anderson Cooper why the democratic socialist hadn’t done enough to restrict gun ownership in America.

The crowd ate it up, and Clinton was seen as the ultimate victor of the first Democratic debate.

While her heavy-handed style may play well with a left-leaning electorate, how it will go over with the general public remains to be determined. Clinton’s unfavorability rating is the highest it’s been since 1992 and the Republican field is currently dominated by two men who rail against the tyranny of political correctness. (RELATED: Hillary Clinton’s Unfavorability Numbers Highest Since 1992)

It begs the question: Is America ready for a finger-wagger in chief? Question mark.

Follow Scott on Twitter