Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party

In the chapter “Why a Theory Seems Needless” in his 1987 book Hidden History: Exploring Our Secret Past, historian Daniel Boorstin posits that the formulation of American political theory has been strangely stunted, especially when compared with the dynamic political thinking present in Europe over the past few centuries, and seems to align with the formerly popular biological notion of preformation, that “all parts of an organism preexist in perfect miniature in the seed”.  Basically, we don’t come up with new political theory in this country because a perfectly good one has existed in full since the Founding.  (This is decidedly oversimplifying his argument, I admit: he fleshes it out very well in the chapter.  Go read it.)

He goes on to say:

Among the factors which have induced us to presuppose an orthodoxy, to construct what I have called a “preformation” theory, none has been more important than the heterogeneous character of our population.  Our immigrants, who have often been the outcasts, the déclassés and the persecuted of their native countries, are understandably anxious to become part of a new national life.  Hence they are eager to believe that they can find here a simplicity of theory lacking in the countries from which they came.  Immigrants, often stupidly blamed for breeding “subversive” or “un-American” ideas, have as much as any other group frenetically sought a “pure” American doctrine.  Where else has there been such a naive sense of political orthodoxy?  Who would think of using the word “un-Italian” or “un-French” as we use the word “un-American”? (pg. 80)

Evidence of this can be found in the feature documentary works of Dinesh D’Souza.  2016: Obama’s America foretells of the coming apocalyptic second term of Barack Obama (this was made in 2012, mind you), where Obamacare bankrupts the country and the president’s foreign policy purposefully weakens the US geopolitically vis-a-vis her “enemies” China, Russia, and Cuba (yeah, I didn’t know Cuba was our enemy either).  America: Imagine the World Without Her, released two years later, bemoans certain elements of “leftist” thinking that apparently subvert American self-pride and power (all the while failing to illustrate what the world would be like without the US).  Through both films runs a palpably conservative point of view that accepts nothing else and rejects any competing ideology as heresy and nigh sedition.  Basically, if you don’t line up with his orthodoxy, you’re the problem, you’re un-American.

Full disclosure:  I fully disagree with his ideology.  Even still, his presentations don’t effectively communicate anything of value.  Instead, they are made as pure smear pieces, intended to discredit in the eyes of the public those he disagrees with politically, namely any “liberals” or Democrats.  He raises points that are either subjectively negative or just plain pointless and constructs quite the fear-mongering mountain out of those meager molehills.  Think of it as a modern equivalent of those “rock music is the devil” screeds of old.

And he’s in full form in his newest piece, Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.

As you can likely glean from the title, this film is meant to expose the dirty secrets buried in the Democrats’ closets.  He puts forth that the Dems portray themselves as the party of social justice, racial equality, and so forth; but then he shows that this is not the case, that the history of the party is littered with intolerance, bigotry, and corruption.  Then, he turns his focus onto Hillary Clinton, portraying her rise to power as the culmination of a lifetime of political graft and a hunger for power.  The bottom line, according to d’Souza, is that the Democrats want to “steal America” (his words), and Clinton’s presidency will be the ultimate expression thereof.

Unlike his previous outings, though, this effort seems severely lacking in a number of respects.  Basically, d’Souza has all of Michael Moore’s weaknesses and none of the charisma and entertainment that help the latter make for them.  America was goddamn hilarious, thanks mostly to d’Souza’s warped ideology and off-kilter methods of “proving” points.  I laughed at quite a few scenes in that film.  Here, though, he seems to have taken a step backward, making a film that’s not only flawed ideologically, but technically as well.

He begins by recounting his run-in with campaign finance laws, showing a high school recreation of his trial for donating more than the allowed amount to a friend’s congressional campaign.  He’s sentenced to mild incarceration, community service, and psychological testing.  While incarcerated (which is also recreated in such a laughable manner as to show why d’Souza thankfully hasn’t branched into pure fictional features yet), he is spurred to learn how the Democrats have gained power despite being so universally despicable.  This part reeks of bitterness for getting caught committing a crime he disagrees with (he freely admits that he indeed contributed too much money, but he thinks it shouldn’t matter: I mean, there’s, like, murderers and stuff out there, who cares about people over-contributing to political campaigns?) and turning the spotlight on the real crimes being committed out there.

So he ventures to another shoddy recreation, this time of the DNC headquarters in DC.  I get the symbolism of these scenes, that he’s venturing into the backalleys and bowels of the Democrats’ HQ to find their deep, dark secrets, but it just comes across as overly hokey and a smaller part of the overrarching strawman of sorts he’s creating here.  You think the Democrats are the party of equality and tolerance and good things, d’Souza says, well just wait ’til you hear this!

Then comes the “secret history” of the title.  I have no idea when d’Souza emigrated to the States or what he was taught back in his school days, but none of the things he brings to light are surprising or secret on my end, based wholly on what I learned in middle school and high school.  Moreover, he leaves out certain damning things that would have enhanced his argument.  For example, he begins by talking about the Dems’ first major presidential force, Andy Jackson, showing him to be racist and brutal, a slaveowner who forcibly removed Indians from their homelands.  But he fails to bring up the apparent extensions of executive power that led to the rise of an opposition party, the Whigs, that would eventually serve as one of the foundational elements of the Republican Party (the party d’Souza beatifies throughout this film).  In fact, he never mentions the Whigs, seeming to claim that the Republicans rose out of the ashes of Jeffersonian thought following the ascension of Jackson.  When he talks about Democratic political machines in the big cities, he oddly focuses on Chicago’s Daley (with no real details or anything, no matter how wide-ranging the evidence of his dirty dealings), while somehow ignoring the model for these types of shenanigans, Boss Tweed and his Tammany Hall machine in New York in the mid-1800s (if you’ve ever seen Gangs of New York, remember Jim Broadbent and his bullshit in that film).  In the end, it seems to come down to d’Souza asking the audience “Did you guys know that politicians were crooked and self-motivated!?”  The sound of the audience nodding at such naivety is deafening.

If nothing else, though, d’Souza does present a potentially interesting framework for looking at American history, one that paints past events as a Manichean clash between two political parties.  This could potentially work, but d’Souza eschews historical reality in favor of a backward-looking view informed by the parties that exist today, rather than the various powerful parties that have existed through time.  In so doing, d’Souza once again illustrates Boorstin’s words: “Today it is still taken for granted that the proper arena of controversy was marked off once and for all in the late eighteenth century:  We are either Jeffersonians or Hamiltonians.” (pg. 81)  The problem is that he never veers from this, even when it would make sense to do so.  Instead, he firmly decries anything from the Donkeys and lauds everything from the Elephants, leaving anything that doesn’t fit his paradigm (and there’s plenty of it) by the wayside, even if it would actually help his argument.  A double set blinders just ensures everyone is all the more unable to see shit properly.

The bits about Hillary in the second half are what you’d expect from a smear piece like this, showing her to be extremist and extremely smarmy and diabolical, plotting with her husband and other cronies to fleece the American populace.  There’s no stated end to Hillary’s machinations, just filthy means.  Why does she want to steal and control America?  I guess we’ll never know.

On a technical level, though, this film fails even more spectacularly.  A good portion is taken up by the aformentioned recreations, which are so weakly executed that their underlying messages are completely lost.  The pacing is glacial at far too many spots, mostly because d’Souza chooses to focus too heavily on a number of points, belaboring the point until you wanna scream “Get on with it!” in full Monty Python pageantry.  Then, at the end, things grind to an absolute halt as d’Souza has a patriotgasm, playing a rendition of “God Bless America”, followed by a full orchestra/chorus version of “The Star-Spangled Banner” (complete with some of the less well-known lyrics, to the film’s credit).  Nothing else happens during these musical numbers, no point is made, there’s not even any real montage of anything, just the patriotic music.  By the time the first song begins, we’re already praying for an end, as things have felt to have gone on for three hours or so, but we’re left languishing for what seems like twenty minutes while we’re “treated” to a short concert before the credits roll.

Overall, I was expecting an hilariously slanted romp in the vein of d’Souza’s previous offerings, something I could enjoy mocking while watching.  Instead, this was a chore to watch, a small tome of minor sound and mediocre fury signifying absolutely nothing.  It was a slog and a half.  I can’t even recommend this for documentary fans or people like me who would otherwise like to make fun of this thing.  It’s just too rushed, too bitter, too poorly done (though the lighting is spectacular throughout, I will say) to enjoy in any manner.  Give it a pass, kids.