It's not hard to understand the nature of the Benghazi controversy, once you observe it is the perfect representation of a number of important things:
- A microcosm of the current administration's foreign policy.
- A compelling example of state department incompetence
- An indictment of the security procedures we have unwittingly relied on.
- The lengths to which the administration would go to make it look benign, when in fact it shows that much is wrong with the system.
- The fact that people died does not seem to merit a response.
The sum of these factors is symbolic, and is a concise telling of the story of this administration. It is now becoming iconic, a kind of shorthand for this administration. The term Benghazi describes this government over the last 5 years. Think: Benghazi scheme, like Ponzi scheme for it's crystallization of a complex idea. It's not that Benghazi is everything, it's that everything is Benghazi, or at least that's the most useful way to describe it.
Most everyone knows what a Rube Goldberg is. It's because the class of contraption is iconic. Rube didn't do every device in the genre, and Benghazi isn't every administration foulup, but it's the best way to get the idea across. This is arguably why we hear a lot about Benghazi, because the same stuff keeps happening; at the IRS, at the VA, at the department of Health and Human Services. "Look, there goes another Benghazi." Nixon had a third-rate burglary on his hands. This is Benghazi.
The term Benghazi sounds like it is overused, and some parties are fatigued, or rendered downright cranky by it; they think of it a one note symphony. In reality, it's the dominant chord in this administration's score, and we notice it most because of the dissonance.
Look for a lot of such icons out of this administration. We are being NSA'd. We are sustaining Holder after Holder. It's another Carney-ism. But somehow, I think the one that endures is that we are well and truly Benghazi-d.
