Why Hillary is so "Hated"
George W. Bush's SOTU address in January of 2003 is most famous for the "16 words". But as I listened to it on the radio, as is my custom, I was struck time and again by the eery notion that I was actually hearing LBJ. (more Medicare, Education, civil service programs etc, and of course, more WAR) It was then that I began to view W as the reincarnation of Lyndon Johnson, which quickly beget the realization that Bill Clinton was the same to JFK. The logical extension for a History buff was of course, that the next in the series would be another Nixon. And having followed the careers of the Clintons since the mid 1970's, I was fully aware of Hillary's ambitions. It was then that I realized the enormity of the parallels. Hillary IS Nixon.
In the heat of Campaign 2008, the major media, inspired by polling data, has begun to ask "Why is Hillary so Hated"?
The reasons are many and complex, but seldom fully explored or explained, as is unfortunately the norm in US national politics and the corporate media that "reports" on it.
The single biggest reason that Hillary Rodham Clinton is "hated" by such a large percentage of the electorate, is that ginning up "hatred" for/toward a prominent politician, is profitable. It is profitable to all concerned, except those whose future depends on an "informed electorate".
The benefits accrue not only financially to the parties,(and always the media) and advocacy organizations that oppose and support them, but they also serve to create a false dichotomy within the electorate's perception. As is said of Academia's squabbles, "the fight is so vicious and intense, because the differences are so insignificant". The same applies to national politics. The 'fight' is personalized because the policy differences are so slight.
To further understand the animus toward Hillary Clinton, the old cliche' "history repeats itself" comes into play. For those old enough, or who have studied enough 'history', the parallels between Hillary and Richard Nixon are at once, amusing and disturbing.
Both rode cultural waves of 'change' to rocket to POTUS power in two decades time, both 'detested' for 'dirty tricks' (smashing "decorum's/previous standards' boundaries successfully). "Successfully" being the key word, for the resentment toward both was multiplied many times by the simple fact that they could and did succeed in gaining the power to implement some of their policies, while of course, simultaneously thwarting, and sometimes co-opting, the forces/policies of their opposition.
Nixon was perceived as an overly ambitious and underly ethical, partisan ideologue who exploited the 'Anti-Communist' wave to achieve too much too soon. Hillary is perceived as the embodiment of anti-'Traditional Values'. A 'nanny-state' advocate of big government solutions, especially on women's and children's issues, to restore and advance the FDR/LBJ paradigm, by exploiting the "Feminist Revolution".
Ike's 1950's is the mythology of right-wing conservatives (race relations, military competence, cia competence, white males as sole providers ruled home and political roosts) *Then came the pill in 1962 and roe/wade in 1973. Hillary is a walking, talking, breathing example of the destruction/reconstruction of the "model family of the 1950's".
LBJ was the apex of FDR "liberal" wave, culminating in debilitating WAR, whereas GWB is the apex of Goldwater/Reagan reaction wave also culminating in debilitating WAR. (WJC was a curious exception, re: balancing the budget through tax increases, sound fiscal policies, welfare reform, military reductions, etc. also known as "small ball") Funny how no matter which cultural wave is ascendant/descendent, WARs continue, courtesy of the MFMIICC (MilitaryFinancialMediaIntelligenceIndustrialCongressional Complex)
HRC's Wellesley speech/Alinsky thesis, her work on Nixon's impeachment, nanny-state solutions for women in workplace, childcare, extension of civil rights laws to women, gays, (curious exception, WARS and Executive Branch powers), fits into Nixon-like perception that she'll modify/camoflauge herself in the pursuit of power). Her suppression work to cover her husband's personal foibles, up to feigning ignorance of the ML truth all the way to 17Aug1998 etc.. also feeds the "suffer anything to get power" perception. Both also share a reputation for secrecy, vindictiveness and political pettiness. (her examples... WH travel office fiasco, AG search, aftermath of VF death, health-care plan written in total secrecy.. ala Cheney's 'Energy Policy', selling 'perks' for campaign cash, pardons, lincoln bedroom, etc.) The monikers "Tricky Dick" and now "Tricky Dickless", though crude and politically incorrect are not as ambiguous in connotation as "Slick Willie" (as some saw it as more of a compliment than derogatory), but will prove historically accurate.
Recently, the idea that HRC is only where she is because of her husband, is a touchstone of right-wing women especially, who resent her (his/their) electoral success (the resentment of their 'jumping the line' has now faded due to the passage of time, but is echoed by the right's desire to thwart another "restoration", hence the bumpersticker argument 'no third term for Bill").
The major, unremarked upon, irony is that Nixon continued and amplified LBJ's policies (with the exception of CHINA which was only possible/acceptable by a "conservative anti-communist, LBJ could never have gotten away with it) Nixon drew down forces in SE Asia when it became politically expedient, as well as dispensed with the DRAFT for the same reason and timing. Policies that in retrospect could well be described as "third way".
Which portends that an HRC administration would continue the GWBush policies with small revisions (US troops will stay in Iraq, with a smaller footprint perhaps, but the rhetorical, muscular, 'sabre-rattling' will continue unabated) HRC would continue to push for amnesty for the illegals already here and like Nixon/China (Reagan/Gorbachev, WJC/Welfare Reform) may be able to 'shut the door' to Mexico, where a Republican could not.
An HRC administration is most feared by those who do not realize that it's very existence will provide the foundation for the GOP's rediscovery of it's "conservative" roots/principles (that were abandoned during the 6 years of House/Senate/WH control... how power doth corrupt and the lack of it focuses the mind... and the wallet?)
It is to that extent to which "Hillary Hatred" is most irrational.
The baby-boomers split in the 1960's is the foundation of the Clinton's political views, the perception of the Eisenhower-1950's is the foundation of the GOP base's political views. An almost pure culture/counter-culture, retro/progressive, ideological schism. Hence the intentional blurring of the lines by HRC since 1998 (standing by her man, vote for war powers, expand executive branch authority, without apology etc.) including the drafting/grooming of the emptiest suit to ever win a primary, not coincidentally from her old hometown, for the purposes of making HRC look more 'centrist' while also fulfilling the political expedient of thwarting any more threatening candidates from opposing her quest for the nomination (worked like a charm), and creating the perception of Hillary having "fought" her way to the nomination, thus becoming "forged in the fires" a.k.a. "earned it".
The countless celebrities endorsing HRC's opponent, from Oprah down, or Raven Symone, Ben Affleck, Dave Matthews up, serves to "innoculate" Hillary from the dreaded and previously fatal perception among the electorate of being identified to closely with elitist "Hollywood Values".
Expect a lot to happen post-convention. HRC will copy the "new Nixon" with a charm offensive. She will not be able to appear on "Laugh-In" and warble "Sock it to ME?", but modern media will provide countless other opportunities for the "humanizing" effort. The "New Hillary" offensive will be assisted by a strategically timed "heart episode" that puts Bill in hospital/home for several crucial weeks, garnering sympathy and simultaneously keeping his mouth shut (win one for the "Slicker"?)
Even a third (perhaps a fourth, fifth) party candidate will dutifully appear to shade the vote in Hillary's favor, and world events, especially those related to Israel, Pakistan, and the Balkans, will redirect the debate away from domestic issues.
It pays to read your History books or listen to the people old enough to remember elections past, and to understand the American appetite for sequels. Though the calendar on the wall says something different, it really is 1968 all over again.
stephenhsmith 5Feb2008
