Hillary Clinton, scholar-president?

Yesterday I had some thoughts on Sen. Clinton’s questionable campaign rhetoric that she’s more prepared, on Day 1, to be the Commander-in-Chief than her opponent, Sen. Obama. In a nutshell, I hear the assertion that it’s true, but I see not a scrap of evidence to back what looks like a specious claim.

There are scholars, of the social contructivist school, who argue that all social reality is constructed through language and that there is no such thing as objective reality.

Reality: Social constructivists believe that reality is constructed through human activity. Members of a society together invent the properties of the world (Kukla, 2000). For the social constructivist, reality cannot be discovered: it does not exist prior to its social invention.

Knowledge: To social constructivists, knowledge is also a human product, and is socially and culturally constructed (Ernest, 1999; Gredler, 1997; Prat & Floden, 1994). Individuals create meaning through their interactions with each other and with the environment they live in.

Learning: Social constructivists view learning as a social process. It does not take place only within an individual, nor is it a passive development of behaviors that are shaped by external forces (McMahon, 1997). Meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities.

Maybe that’s what Hillary is – a social constructivist. Maybe she’s more intellectual than we have given her credit for being, and she’s in the process of forging a reality where none existed before. How else to explain her follow-up on the CiC issue yesterday?

“One of us is ready to be commander in chief,” she told the crowd in New York. “Let’s get real. Let’s get real about this election, let’s get real about our future, let’s get real about what it is we can do together.”

Wow. I mean, she abandons the “on Day 1” meme from earlier, and she says “let’s get real” four times in a row!

There you have it. “Let’s get real” = “let’s create social reality,” which means that she’s right – she is more qualified than Sen. Obama. Why? Because she SAID so. And you don’t see Obama creating the reality of his superior military credentials through rhetoric, do you?

My apologies for yesterday’s ill-conceived doubtfest, Sen. Clinton. I was wrong – saying it does make it so.

By the way, I’d love a chance to be the newest member of the Dallas Mavericks, so let me be clear about one thing: I’m the only writer at Scholars & Rogues who’s ready to throw a barrage of 360° monster dunks up in Shaquille O’Neal’s grille.

Excuse me, my phone is ringing. Oh, look – it’s coming from the 214 area code….

8 replies »

  1. Pingback: www.buzzflash.net
  2. Sam,
    None of the comments I saw on yesterdays post disagreed with your assertion that she is not qualified. the only one I saw that came close to disagreeing with you was mine and I would hope someone as intelligent as you would recognize sarcasm when he sees it. She is a flake and needs to be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
    Plain enough?

  3. Remarkable. One may disagree with Clinton that Obama isn’t qualified without thinking Clinton herself isn’t qualifed. Since, apparently no regular commenters at S&R will stand up for Clinton allow me to do so – she’s more than qualified or Obama isn’t qualified either.

    The silly season is truly here.

  4. Hi, Ian. I have no reason to think she’s LESS qualified than Obama, either. It’s the “more” part that I need proven. And unless qualified means more ready to get us into new debacles on day one, I’m not sure I think McCain is a scrap more qualified, either.

  5. Ian – I don’t think any of the three candidates are really qualified. All three make me queasy for one reason or another.

    I won’t stand up for Clinton, but I won’t stand up for any of the others either. 🙂