DELLECHIAIE: Hillary Clinton’s new book and why I won’t waste my time with it

On Sunday, I walked around the Barnes and Noble in the Prudential Center with my roommate. While we were in line, I saw Hillary Clinton’s new book. It was already discounted by 30 percent (40 percent if you are a Barnes and Noble member).

I looked at the book, chuckled.

So why did Clinton write a book? Is it to keep her name in the news cycle so she can announce another campaign? Or maybe she has become an eminent political scientist and sees her campaign as evidence of a new groundbreaking theory? Maybe she’s just strapped for cash.

Over the last few months, too many books have come out about why the election went the way it did. “Devil’s Bargain” by Joshua Green says Steve Bannon was the reason. “Insane Clown President” by Matt Taibbi (my favorite book to come out post-election) says it was the establishment ignoring the poor and lower middle class. CNN says it’s BREAKING NEWS: RUSSIA. Democrats say James Comey. Socialists say it was the DNC. Anarchists blame everyone. Fox News says it’s because Donald Trump is the second incarnation of God. All of these are valid points — well, almost all are valid points. But what must be said is that none of these points tell the whole story.

In the essay sections of “War and Peace,” Leo Tolstoy makes the argument that history is not the effect of one cause, one principal actor or one action. (For those wondering why “War and Peace” is so long, it is because he wants to show history through as many viewpoints as possible.)

There are tons of causes that create what we call history. The study of history is almost impossible because in order to be accurate, you have to take into account a ton of causes. Some historians focus on one actor (such as a president or the leader of a social movement) but this approach leaves out too much. Op-ed column writers do the same thing.

To relate this to what we are going through now, Hillary’s book is an attempt to name a few causes in her favor. But these causes are just a fraction of what actually happened.

There will never be a definitive account of the 2016 presidential election. Not because the world is going to end —fingers crossed — but because it would be impossible to compile. But I am not saying that history is impossible to study or not worth the time: it is.

When you study history, you learn that previous generations dealt with these exact same problems (this isn’t the first time in history that a populist won an office through appealing to the masses). Through your studies of the past, you may even learn some good solutions to the problems of the day.

What could Hillary (and other politicians) learn from reading some history books? The first thing I would say is that if you can’t relate with people, don’t patronize them. The second is that people are suspicious of a party that “fights” for the interests of the common man while having so many connections to Wall Street. And finally, please apologize when you are wrong or at fault. You aren’t “tough” or “stoic” if you refuse to apologize for something you did wrong. If anything, you end up presenting yourself as above other people and unable to learn.
If you want to read Clinton’s book, go for it. I would never tell anyone to not read it (in my opinion, the reason she lost is because not enough Americans read). But while you read it, keep in mind what is left out of the narrative.