The politics of the recent Presidential election totally aside, I heard a news commentator a couple of days ago comment on Hillary’s career, noting she had been committed to public service for 35 years.
What public service?
Did she make midnight rides with some fire department, helping fire-fighters fight blazing homes and rescue families within them?
Did she stand back-up for policemen responding to violent domestic disputes between two drunken or doped-up crazies who were prepared to shoot someone intervening in their scuffle as earnestly as they were prepared to shoot one another?
Did Hillary spend a few semesters teaching at-risk students in an impoverished school district in the rural Deep South or the urban Northeast? Or somewhere else?
Or maybe she did a tour in Afghanistan where she patrolled the scary streets of some hostile province inhabited by vicious people devoted to killing Americans?
Those are all examples of public service as I understand public service. But I didn’t notice
any of that going on in her very public career the past 35 years. On the contrary, she strikes me as one driven after power, influence, wealth, and political achievement.
If that be the case, then call her career political pursuits or governmental administration: the word service suggests that the one providing the service gave up something, sacrificed something, or acted out of a servant spirit.
But please, don’t suggest that a vainglorious career politician is a public servant. To call high-level political ambition service is gratuitous, disingenuous, even offensive, when we consider the true meaning of service.