"I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame," said Hillary Clinton.

"'I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message — we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support — because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic,' she said.... Mrs. Clinton’s remarks to The Guardian drew criticism and a dose of surprise from an array of scholars, pro-immigration advocates and pundits on both the left and right, some of whom were so perplexed by the comments that they wondered aloud whether Mrs. Clinton had perhaps misspoken. Mrs. Clinton, many said, has a long history of supporting refugees — a track record seemingly at odds with her recent remarks. Her immigration platform in the 2016 presidential election boasted that 'we embrace immigrants, not denigrate them.'"

The NYT reports.

Doesn't this make Hillary a racist — according to the logic of the Democratic Party?

Maybe this is the idea: It is racist, but there are so many racists, that if the less-racist party does not appeal to racists, the more-racist party will win, so it's crucial for progressive parties in Europe and the Democratic Party in the United States to be racist enough to defeat the more virulent racists. It's not racism for the sake of racism, but a pragmatic use of racism as a means to an end that is not racism at all. Some people are just cruel, but the good people have to be cruel to be kind.



"Indeed, Mrs. Clinton’s assessment represented a stark reminder of the sort of politics she and her husband were long identified with: pragmatic and canny in the view of moderates but, to progressives, nothing less than craven accommodation to the nationalism she purportedly wants to tame."

The Clintons. Ever Clintonian.