It’s actually not a question, but rather that I have a suspicion about what is driving her increasingly paranoid and, frankly, deranged comments and actions.
Let’s start with the fact that Nancy and far too many in Congress and government have little to no contact with reality. Like her compatriots, she comes from a political family and is used to living a life of wealth and power. She has steadily expanded that wealth and power throughout her years in Congress. The worries of the “little people” about missing a paycheck, unexpected expenses, putting food on the table, and all else that is real life for the majority of citizens isn’t real to her. She runs in circles where this is the norm, and the worst she has to face is running out of her favorite ice cream and not being able to eat it for a day or two.
Her contact with the proles is carefully limited, usually scripted, and designed for her to signal rather than to actually engage. She has no use for those proles, and holds them in contempt — including the troops currently helping guard the Capitol. Keep in mind, this is the woman who won’t fly commerical but demands Air Force transport that over the last couple of decades has cost hunreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to avoid being anywhere near the proles. She’s smart and cunning within her own world, but, again, that world has little to no contact with reality. For two good takes on this, read this post and then this post over at Sarah A. Hoyt’s site (which you should be reading everyday).
Now, add in the fact that she is slipping. Her famed skills in politics are not what they once where. She is challenged within the party, and not always by AOC and the new crew. Her badly thought out video interview was not really aimed at the proles, but rather those in the bubble in part to remind them she is still rich and powerful, and to signal her “concern” for the average person rather than to do anything for them. Remember, within this class, signalling is far more important that doing something that works. The signal is what matters, not the results.
For Nancy, I suspect her rise to power and the effort to put the “elites” in permanent charge has been what might be termed an adacemic or intellectual exercise. Yes, people would pay a price for what she wants to see happen, but any financial or other price — including the loss of lives — would be others, not her and hers.
Then came the riot at the Capitol. The proles (on pretty much every side) broke in. They broke in to her office. In her mind, they attacked her. This was no longer academic, or even professional politics: this was suddenly having to face reality and she’s handling it badly. Her brush with reality has instilled a sense of panic if not outright terror, because she suddenly realized that her actions might actually have consequences for her and her family. That she could pay that price of loss of money, freedom, or even her life.
Students of history, much less those who have worked with intelligence matters including trying to figure out what others will do, can recognize the signs. It’s not new, as it has happened many times over the ages. Even Hollywood has used it, usually with some right-wing type tyrant killing off those around them for fear of treachery. Though, for my money, one of the best depictions of it was done by Tom Clancy in The Sum Of All Fears.
The person in power suddenly realizes that they could die or otherwise pay a price. Instead of reacting in a professional manner, they make everything personal because to them it is personal as everything revolves around them. They focus in on that aspect like an electron microscope. Everything else is dropped. The decisions they make are based on that, not on reality or even reality within the bubble. Those decisions are always, always, bad. They make the situation worse, and in reality it often leads to bloodshed and violence that could have been prevented. My one gripe with the late Mr. Clancy (who was a very good host btw) in his book is that the intervention he described is good fiction, but not well based in reality.
Look at Nancy’s actions since the riot. Look at her reactions and body language. This is the face and actions of someone in power who has suddenly realized that this is real, and is terrified. In her mind, all those who came in (right, left, Anti-fah, BLM) were coming for her. In her actions and comments since, that idea seems to have grown and consumed a large part of her mind and thoughts. The troops can’t be trusted, since they are proles, but we need more troops to guard us. Set up machine guns to gun down the swarms who will attack on inauguration day. Why, Republicans and maybe even others in the House are looking to gun us down on the floor of the House. We need more loyal people to guard me/us.
These are not cool, calm, professional, or even rational comments and concerns. They are, however, a fairly typical response by narcisistic leaders and tyrants when they suddenly realize that they might actually pay a price. I also strongly suspect from what I hear and read that she’s not alone with this slide into paranoia and fantasy. They just are being more quiet about it and/or don’t have her platform. It’s also why they truly believe it to be an insurrection, rather than using that line as a Big Lie for gain. That’s happening, but I suspect that Nancy and others really think it was, because in their minds it was aimed at harming them. Also keep in mind that any thing done to thwart them is now a personal attack on them. That’s the way this type of thinking works.
Leaders, heck, anyone, in this condition make bad, very bad, decisions. Given that their decisions were never based in reality to start with, what happens next could go not just badly, but extremely badly. Look at history to see just how badly. Look also at The Killing Fields, the Gulags, the Camps.
Now, to make your day even brighter, look at our military. Do you think that the military will hold, and do it’s proper duty to refuse illegal orders? I don’t. I suspect that at best, the military will shatter. In it’s current state, it can not and will not hold. The consequences of that, however, are preferable to implementation of what is being discussed openly: vetting the troops for proper politics. In other words, purging the military of anyone not progressive enough and creating a praetorian/republican guard organization loyal not to the Constitution, but to those in power. In any way, shape, or form, this is a very bad idea.
Part of me hopes I’m wrong on this, especially as I have no faith in the professionalism, honor, or integrity of most people in DC — especially those in leadership positions. If you can prove I’m wrong, please do so. Otherwise, where this goes is likely downhill and fast, on a slope greased by the innocent.