My Musings on Hillary's America Documentary

[PhuturePriest]

So my family brought me along to watch Dinesh D'Souza's newest documentary, Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. I am curious if anyone else has watched and, if so, what their thoughts were on it.

Walking in, I had a firm resolution to remain impartial and not mindlessly accept everything said as a matter of pragmatic historical fact, or to treat any and all future predictions made as iron-clad prophecies. I am very glad I made this resolution, because I found things in it that were troubling to me that I would have unthinkingly accepted before. I was almost immediately validated in my resolution as soon as the documentary began with the hallowing statement said after images of America's largest cities burning: “What if the goal of the Democratic Party is to steal the most valuable thing the world has ever produced? What if their plan is to steal — America?”

There were three factual things in the documentary that I found particularly troubling, and a main overall tonal issue I had with the documentary that I think betrays its seeming pretense to remain completely factual and impartial. The first thing I found troubling was, of course, the documentary's big attempt at convincing people that democrats, having been shown as historically pro-slavery, anti-woman, anti-Native American, and racist, have not changed their ideology, and their current image of being the party for minorities and social justice is a mere cover. Democrats secretly hate minorities (black people specifically,) and they intentionally created ghettos and placed black people in them. They give social welfare benefits for the sake of looking empathetic and loving, but only so they may gain votes and power, so the documentary indicts. To intensify the claim, one Chicago mayor is even portrayed as having sent seeming mobsters to ghettos and forced immigrants to vote for him. Clearly, this whole claim about democrats is a very far-fetched claim that, like all far-fetched claims, cannot technically be proven true or untrue, as proving or disproving the claim would involve interrogating every single democrat politician. Consequently, it is a claim that can only be believed if you have a predisposition against democrats and their sincerity, and as that category of people is the target audience of the documentary, it is sadly the case that (at least in my personal witness of those who watched it) the plan worked, and the claims were blindly believed to be as factual as 2+2=4.

The second troubling claim for me is that Hillary didn't marry Bill unwittingly or in spite of his apparent issues with fidelity, but because of them. D'Souza claims Hillary schemed to use Bill's personal issues as a political strategy to garner empathy, admiration, and consequently, of course, votes. A clip of them discussing their fidelity and love for each other is then almost mockingly shown as proof of this claim and an indictment against this sham of a political marriage. They don't really love each other -- only what the other can offer in political advancement.

In lieu of this, Dinesh goes into the much-discussed rape case Hillary was involved with in her career as an attorney, supposedly to prove she has a callous disregard for victims of rape, whilst also showing a recent clip of her supporting victims to speak out and seek justice and healing. The famous soundbite of her seemingly laughing at the rape victim without context is played, followed by a highlighted quote of Hillary saying the girl in question (whom she recognizes as a victim) displayed signs of mental instability and a fascination towards older men. The documentary blows past any attempt at contextualizing the quote, and consequently does not answer why it was said, but merely presumes it that callous indifference towards rape victims so prevalent in Hillary's character. It could be that Hillary is simply callously attacking the victim, of course -- but it could also be true she made these remarks in order to recommend treatment, or because it was important to explain how the victim got into the situation in the first place (It is not inherently indicting against the victim's conscience to note if such a problem legitimately exists, nor does it excuse the actions of the rapist.) Ultimately, no thing can be confidently said without context, and it is unjust to presume the worst without it. I will provide that thing, however, and offer a context here from Snopes.

Lastly, in consequence of these indicting claims and others made about the Clintons, D'Souza portrays both of them as "crooks" and "thieves" who have built their careers around manipulating people in order to gain power and money. They are callous, evil, sexually deviant malcontents who climbed to power on the bodies of their victims: minorities and women of whom they used as political tools.

The documentary ends in a dramatic crescendo of a whole orchestra playing the national anthem with dramatic videos of American soldiers and famous historical figures. Hillary, Bill, and the whole democratic party, are enemies of America, her laws, and her people. Only we have the power to stop this evil fiend. Any true patriot and lover of America will vote against Hillary and all democrats this coming November and forevermore.

Though I found all of this incredibly dramatic and heavy-handed, it became immediately apparent that those with me in the theater did not. After loudly scoffing and laughing at the evil Clintons and their insidious Democrat cohorts throughout the whole documentary, my fellow theater-goers stood up and put their hands over their hearts during the national anthem, and then began raucously clapping and cheering half a minute before the credits were even rolling.

And that is the central overarching issue for me: the documentary is so heavy-handed, so dramatic, so grandiose and far-reaching in its claims, that those predisposed towards such rhetoric believe anything and everything in the documentary without careful thought and deliberation. Everything in it is true, and if you disagree with or question it, you are one of them: a hater of minorities, women, justice, and perhaps most grievously, America.

What are your thoughts, if you have seen it? It's quite a lengthy show, so I missed many things and most probably overlooked certain positives and negatives. I'm honestly not quite used to viewing things critically (a defect of my natural temperament, I am afraid, is that I am a wholly uncritical and accepting person, which brings its curses in addition to blessings,) so if any of you have insights on the documentary or disagreements with my estimation of it, please feel free to post.

Edited July 25, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[truthfinder]

No documentary is unbiased. 

I have not seen the documentary, but you seem to have pulled out some real problems with it.  

I'm rather interested in the wikileaks that have come out about the DNC and the info that Russia is the leaker; at this point Trump scares me and Hillary disgusts me. 

[PhuturePriest]

10 minutes ago, truthfinder said:

No documentary is unbiased. 

I have not seen the documentary, but you seem to have pulled out some real problems with it.  

I'm rather interested in the wikileaks that have come out about the DNC and the info that Russia is the leaker; at this point Trump scares me and Hillary disgusts me. 

Certainly no documentary is unbiased. But there's a difference between being reasonably biased and claiming democrats are closeted racists who subject minorities to gain power and wealth.

Yeah, that's a very interesting development, if true. And I'm in the same boat, really: Hillary is far from an acceptable candidate, and Trump is the closest thing we've ever gotten to a textbook fascist.

[truthfinder]

6 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Certainly no documentary is unbiased. But there's a difference between being reasonably biased and claiming democrats are closeted racists who subject minorities to gain power and wealth.

 

Well,  at least there's no question what their stance is! And I would tend to agree that the democrats (some of them) are racist, but so are republicans - they just go about it in different ways. 

[Seven77]

I'm not a big fan of the guy to be honest.  From my understanding, his documentary on the president is similar in tone and seems to rely on fear mongering at the expense of making well reasoned arguments.  The whole thing comes off biased whether it actually is or not.

 The "us versus them" mentality Really bothers me.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Seven77

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Seven77 said:

I'm not a big fan of the guy to be honest.  From my understanding, his documentary on the president is similar in tone and seems to rely on fear mongering at the expense of making well reasoned arguments.  The whole thing comes off biased whether it actually is or not.

 The "us versus them" mentality Really bothers me.

Indeed. I watched 2016: Obama's America when it came about, and due to the fact that I was super Republican and disliked Obama with all my being, I was more than willing to believe all of it and think the worst of Obama. That experience helped me to have better perspective and not blindly believe anything and everything this time around.

[Maggyie]

There are lots of problems with it, haven't seen it, but I think at one point there's a fantasy sequence where Wilson envisions the KKK riding across the White House lawn. Sure he was a racist but... Naaaaah to that. 

The stuff about Hillary and sexual abuse, that's a legit line of reasoning. She has a history of very troubling actions with that. Her comments on the rape victim should be read in context with her husbands actions and her choice to drag his victims through the mud. Not voting for Trump but yeah, where there's smoke there's fire with that. 

[Anomaly]

12 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Certainly no documentary is unbiased. But there's a difference between being reasonably biased and claiming democrats are closeted racists who subject minorities to gain power and wealth.

Yeah, that's a very interesting development, if true. And I'm in the same boat, really: Hillary is far from an acceptable candidate, and Trump is the closest thing we've ever gotten to a textbook fascist.

If nothing else, you should have an understanding that politics necessarily put a spin on everything.  Hillary doesn't want to destroy America and encourage a flood of illegals with bombs for votes any more than Trump wants a land-mined, thirty foot moat and an all pink populace.  

The reality is we need to have a secure border AND an open gate. They're both painting each other in hyberbolic extreme to instill fear and dislike in order to get votes.  

Dinesh is the other side of Micheal Moore.  Both have business models to make money and political capitol with fear movies. 

The reaction of the audience seems to be skepticism of the outlandish claims, but a love for this Country. America is fundamentally a country of immigrants who come here to be American and share in this identity.  

Most don't want people here that hate this country, wish it harm, or don't want to be American.  Sadly Politicians use this as a a political weapon against each other.  It's great that you're skeptical, but be careful of being too cynical.   Too much, or too little of both, is falling for their manipulations. 

[Seven77]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Dinesh is the other side of Micheal Moore.  Both have business models to make money and political capitol with fear movies. 

It's great that you're skeptical, but be careful of being too cynical.   Too much, or too little of both, is falling for their manipulations. 

Exactly

[PhuturePriest]

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

If nothing else, you should have an understanding that politics necessarily put a spin on everything.  Hillary doesn't want to destroy America and encourage a flood of illegals with bombs for votes any more than Trump wants a land-mined, thirty foot moat and an all pink populace.  

The reality is we need to have a secure border AND an open gate. They're both painting each other in hyberbolic extreme to instill fear and dislike in order to get votes.  

Dinesh is the other side of Micheal Moore.  Both have business models to make money and political capitol with fear movies. 

The reaction of the audience seems to be skepticism of the outlandish claims, but a love for this Country. America is fundamentally a country of immigrants who come here to be American and share in this identity.  

Most don't want people here that hate this country, wish it harm, or don't want to be American.  Sadly Politicians use this as a a political weapon against each other.  It's great that you're skeptical, but be careful of being too cynical.   Too much, or too little of both, is falling for their manipulations. 

"Seems to be skepticism at the outlandish claims"? I'm afraid I'm not quite sure where you get that impression. They stood up and proceeded to applaud and cheer loudly for the documentary, as I also saw happen at the end of 2016: Obama's America. I don't think these people are evil or anything of the sort, of course. Their applause just means they appreciated the documentary whereas I think it requires a more discerned approach. They could be right and I could be wrong, of course.

[Anomaly]

Perhaps I misinterpreted your "scoffing" as scoffing at the overly dramatic and then standing up in general patriotism.  People can easily get patriotically emotional.  If you've ever attended an NFL game with a flyover after the anthem, you'd know what I mean.   Every single person there, man, women, child, home team, visitor, democrat, republican, libertarian, is on the same American Team.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Anomaly

[PhuturePriest]

37 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Perhaps I misinterpreted your "scoffing" as scoffing at the overly dramatic and then standing up in general patriotism.  People can easily get patriotically emotional.  If you've ever attended an NFL game with a flyover after the anthem, you'd know what I mean.   Every single person there, man, women, child, home team, visitor, democrat, republican, libertarian, is on the same American Team.

Certainly. And perhaps that was the case for some (or even many) there. I can only speak on behalf of the people I spoke with after the documentary, and their applause and cheering was wholehearted support for all of the points made in the documentary without exception.

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said:

Certainly. And perhaps that was the case for some (or even many) there. I can only speak on behalf of the people I spoke with after the documentary, and their applause and cheering was wholehearted support for all of the points made in the documentary without exception.

I understand your concern than.   Enthusiasm or powerful disdain based on a shallow understanding is what politicians generally strive for and are very successful.   

Unfortunately, politicians have to play the shallow game because most voters are impatient, inattentive, and easily influenced with sound bites and peer pressure (particularly with social media).   

Edited July 25, 2016 by Anomaly

[Socrates]

As I haven't yet had the opportunity to watch this movie, I can't really comment with any depth on it or its particular claims.  I've generally liked most of D'Souza's previous work, though.  I don't necessarily agree with every single thing he says, but overall he's right on the money.

I don't think he's ever really made much of a pretense to being "non-partisan"; he's always been pretty openly a conservative activist (not that I find anything wrong with that, of course).  Of course, no political movie is going to be without bias.

It seems like it was made to counteract a particularly pernicious (but effective) bit of bs leftist propaganda, the whole notion that conservatives or Republicans are inherently evil racists, and that the Democrats are genuinely concerned with helping the lot of blacks and other minorities.  Democrats exploit minorities to consolidate their own power.

FP, I honestly wish you'd apply some of the same skepticism you have towards this movie and conservatives towards left-wing propaganda, much of which you unfortunately seem to have uncritically swallowed.

Dinesh D'Souza and his movies aside, Hillary Clinton is a very evil, dishonest, and machiavellian politician, whose leftist policies will be disastrous for this country and what little remains of constitutional law in this land.  I pray to God you don't for her.

(Unfortunately, I'm afraid in reality Trump is not a whole lot better; at this point I'm honestly not sure if I will vote for him, though I certainly will not support Hillary in any way; she remains the greater evil.  However, Trump is no more fascist than either Obama or Hillary.)

I would be far, far, far more worried about a Hillary Clinton presidency than about D'Souza or this movie.  Frankly, at this point, I think it's hard to be too cynical about our leading politicians, Democrat or Republican.  They're not good-hearted public servants trying to do what's best for the rest of us, but power-crazed wolves.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

Hillary Clinton is a very evil, dishonest, and machiavellian politician, whose leftist policies will be disastrous for this country and what little remains of constitutional law in this land.  I pray to God you don't for her.

It is truly a shame. I wish we had an opportunity to vote for Ted "I would support the only candidate with any chance of beating Hillary Clinton, but let me just throw him under the bus for my own presidential aspirations in 2020 instead" Cruz. We need some men of real principle in the White House.

But I am wondering, are there any Democratic politicians who you would not apply the above statements to? If so, who are they?