It's remarkable to me how hard it's been for me to write this. I
think my writer's block for the past month or more has much to do with
ambivalence about putting these ideas out to you. I think you'll
understand, maybe understand easily, but the felt social pressure not
to say this surprises me --- and is part of my point.
First I'll say that I have no problem at all with Barack Obama as
president. Assuming he winds up being the Dem nominee, I will certainly
support and vote for him. I read his books before he was a candidate,
was very impressed, urged friends to read them. He has powerful
worthwhile ideas to express; he's eloquent in expressing them; he's
wonderfully intelligent and charismatic. As representative for the
country he'd have tremendous power for good, both in what he'd say and
do, and in who he is. I have no problem or quarrel with those who
decided he's their top choice. Easy to understand that.
What I do have a problem with is the number of progressives who see HRC
not just as their lesser choice, but as a villain. I think that's a
picture that's been painted over a long span of time, by a lavishly
funded media campaign, sometimes blatant and sometimes subtle.
One of the reasons that bothers me so much is that --- if/when Hillary
& Bill are out of the running --- the same thing will almost
certainly be aimed at Obama. It's a tool that has been pretty effective
[though note: HRC has still been winning lots of elections] and given
the mess the Republican right has made, their best chance is to
distract attention from themselves by creating controversy about their
opponent. I'm afraid a great many of those who've bought the garbage
about the Clintons will, over time, buy it about Obama.
And one of the reasons I think HRC's staying in the race for as long as
possible has been a good thing: the right wing has had to scatter its
shot, and if Obama becomes the Dem presidential candidate in June, there will be
only a few months for the negatives to be broadly and intensely
focussed, insinuated, and drilled in before the general election.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The essence of the right's campaign against the Clintons has been volume:
multiple charges in rapid succession or simultaneously. The fact that
the charges turned out to be flimsy concoctions, in essence nothing
(Whitewater, troopergate, filegate, travelgate, and on and on) was
obscured by the fact that there was always more in the air. In a
community of even tolerably fair-minded people, if you keep hearing bad
things about someone over and over, it's safe to assume there's really
something wrong with that person. "Where there's smoke there's fire" is
the folk wisdom expression of that.
The right wing has used that general wisdom together with their wealth
and their control of multiple media outlets to make sure there was
always plenty of smoke around the Clintons from the time they first
appeared on the national political scene. It was just one part of a
long-term well-orchestrated effort by the far right to gain permanent
political control in this country, an effort that goes back at least to
the 1970s. It didn't matter if there was not even a kernel of truth in
the charges they portrayed because the point wasn't proving real
offenses; the point was to have continuous smoke.
Conservatives
saw it (or at least sold it) as a defensive effort, in response to the
progressive trend of the previous century and especially the
previous few decades. The folksy charm of Ronald Reagan was very useful
in moving public opinion; his presidency started with claims of social
concern ("Hands Across America" to help the homeless) and went on to
help the wealthy with trickle-down economics plugged near the top.
Others re-wrote history of the real social concerns of the '60s and
'70s with the universal label "The Me Generation."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
It was a program that worked. By the end of the '80s we were living in
a far more conservative and more harshly capitalistic culture. Reagan's
faux social concern was echoed by subsequent Republican
administrations: Bush I started with "A Thousand Points of Light" and
Bush II with "compassionate conservatism" but the wellbeing of the
disadvantaged wasn't a priority beyond rhetoric. When the Clintons
appeared in the early'90s, they posed a real threat to the conservative
tide which by then had risen considerably, especially in its synergy
with the religious right. The Clintons were able to connect with many
of the people who'd switched from Democrat to Republican --- in the
south and the Rust Belt especially. Hillary's background was middle
class, Bill's genuinely working class, and they were able to empathise
and speak to working and middle-class people in ways neither the phony
populism of wealthy Republicans nor the intellectualism of many establishment Democrats could match.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The Clintons embodied important progressive values --- education
as a route to success; gender equality; embrace of diversity. They were both
policy wonks, able to keep track of facts and program implications. It
was probably apparent to Republican nightmares that if Bill were
elected and had a successful presidency, there was a strong possibility
that Hillary (just as well educated, just as politically adept) could
step up for another 8 years of Democratic administration. When Bill
spoke of "two for the price of one" it must have caused shudders.
So the Republicans launched the most intensive attack on a presidency
that had been seen in many generations. Much of the effort was
intellectually based in the neoconservative think tanks, but there were
plenty of practical political fighters and mercenaries to carry it
forward. Richard Mellon Scaife was one major source of the lavish
funding, though not the only one. Bitter segregationists who had
grudges about Bill Clinton's actions as governor of Arkansas were paid
and provided platforms for attack. If they couldn't bring him down, at
least they could keep him so preoccupied defending against one charge
after another that his effectiveness would be undermined.
Read David Brock's "Blinded by the Right," for an account by someone
who worked for the right and later thought better of it. Read Sidney
Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars" for the tangled interconnections of the
various attacks.
The Democrats in Congress did not initially provide much support to
"their" president. There were the perennial power issues between
branches of government; there was resentment that the Clintons were
outsiders, not Washington regulars; there were representatives bound to
the views of their constituencies and doubtful that Clinton could
protect their re-election. I hold an unproven theory that there were
and are "moles" whose loyalties were not to the party they ostensibly
belong to.
Bill Clinton tried for major moves; when blocked, he maneuvered to find
ways to make incremental progress and made some, but was attacked by
many in his own party who saw gradualism as a beytrayal of principle,
and were appalled when he used conservative language to sell progressive ideas. (I tell it as I saw and remember it)
In the end, of course, he was nearly brought down by a stupid and
tawdry recreational sexual liason. But even then, with every twisting
of legal and political powers to bring him down, he survived. And
despite all the character assassination that has been directed at
Hillary since 1992, she too has survived and continues to present her
policy ideas (very similar to Obama's) to voters and to win elections.
The Republicans were right to fear them.
During this Democratic primary, every candidate has at times been
bashed over irrelevancies (Edwards' $400 haircut, Obama's pastor),
misinterpreted statements (Michelle Obama's comment that there have
been times when she wasn't proud of America), statements taken out of
context, and so forth. For Obama, this was balanced with positive
coverage --- rarely much substance about policy positions, but at least
some record of good moments and effective speeches. For HRC, though,
there's been a very heavy weighting toward the negative. Headlines were
even more likely to be negative than the stories beneath the headline;
a close reading of the story sometimes eventually yielded the details
which disproved the simplistic headline, but later reporting usually took the
headline as the complete history.
If there was an exchange of criticism between Obama and HRC, headlines
usually reported "Hillary attacks Obama" or "Obama defends against
Clinton attack" regardless of whose statement came first. [I could say
a lot more about this, because it struck me enough that I spent time
following up on stories to get the full account when it wasn't easily
apparent in press accounts. Just one example: it's taken as sad truth
by now that Bill Clinton "played the race card" by mentioning Jesse
Jackson in South Carolina, but reading the whole exchange just doesn't
support that charge.]
All in all, I think there are very similar strengths and very similar
policies between Obama and HRC. Each is eloquent (I suspect those who
say she isn't, just haven't watched any significant portion of one of
her speeches). Both are highly ambitious and competitive (you just
don't get that close to the presidency without those qualities) but
clearly both have other motivations, not just power-hunger. All of
those qualities --- ambition, competitiveness, power-seeking ---
are generally seen much more negatively in a woman than in a man, and
that's made the tightrope HRC has had to walk: too soft and she's just
not presidential material; too firm and she's power-mad and cold; with
no space between too soft and too firm.
Most of the explanations I've heard from those who say they wouldn't vote
for HRC seem to boil down to a visceral discomfort or dislike. I
believe that's due to the way she has been reported (or mis-reported)
over and over for years. I have carefully considered the other
possibility, that I'm misled; I've looked at her writings and watched
her speeches and read what people who know her say about her strengths
and weaknesses. I keep coming back to the conclusion that the aversion
is mostly based on cultural discomfort with a woman who actively seeks
a powerful job, amplified and encouraged by politically-inspired
negative reporting.
About Hillary's refusal to "step down for the good
of the party" --- besides the point above about diffusing the
Republicans' attacks --- I'd make two other points.
First, this really has not been a vicious campaign, though the media have
played up every negative statement or implication; for the most part
the candidates have been trying to talk about policies and ideals ---
so the charge that the extended primary battle is doing great harm to
the eventual winner really doesn't hold water.
Second, although Obama has clearly held the lead for awhile now, this
is no runaway contest. HRC has continued to win elections, some of them
by wide margins. I can't remember another primary contest when a
candidate withdrew while still holding a very significant share of
victories.
So here's what I'd still like to see: Clinton for president,
Obama for veep for 8 years; then Obama as president for another 8. (Why
not the other way around? could be done, but in 8 years she'll be 68,
and he'll only be 55. In American president terms, he's still a young
man then; his age would not be an issue. Hers probably would be,
especially because Americans still think women more depleted by age
than men (despite women's longer life expectancy).
Do I expect Clinton/Obama to happen? seems quite unlikely now. But I
wanted to say it for the sake of the possibility --- and the possibility of HRC as
vice-president --- and of the next strong woman candidate for the
presidency --- and to avoid feeling like a complete coward. And also in
hope of raising some awareness about the destructive effects of
blitzkrieg negative reporting, because I don't think it's going away
until we get smart enough to make sure it stops working.
Recent Comments