Hate Springs Eternal
In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”
The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.
And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.
I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.
For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.
One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.
I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.
______________________________________________________________Some of my briefly hashed out comments, hopefully semi-coherent:
There's a line in there, that "Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts." With this, I wholeheartedly agree. You look at the fact that Obama has actually been using as a surrogate on healthcare "Bush Dog Democrat Jim Cooper," the very guy who worked back in '93 and '94 to undermine Clinton's healthcare plan with more insurance-friendly proposals to other senators and lobbyists. As Krugman writes, "This fits in with my sense, based on everything we’ve seen in this campaign, that Obama just isn’t all that committed to health care reform. If he does make it to the White House, I hope he proves me wrong. But as I’ve written before, from my perspective it looks as if a dream is dying." Word, Paul Krugman.
The issues, though extend beyond healthcare (which Hillary clearly has the upper hand in), and go back to experience. (yes I know people are sick of hearing me and all Hill fans say it). As my good friend Klaus over at Stanford was telling me the other day, the differences in policy between Hillary and Obama are few, artificial and intentionally imposed, only to allow respective supporters to have something to cling to. We were talking about foreign policy, for instance:
"The distinction they're drawing on each other's foreign policy approaches is artificial, and in fact I think the same about several other issues on which they supposedly differ. They just think so similarly about policy issues that they're trying to make artificial distinctions like this so that they have something their supporters can hold on to.
What's more important to me is that I feel like Obama is so inexperienced that he's had to take sides on issues hastily. In many cases, his policy positions have been significantly influenced by what Hillary has been saying - not by principle - and intentionally either slightly different or exactly the same. The foreign policy issue is a good example. In the debate where it first came up, Obama was asked the question first, and his answer was about as simple as it could have been: yes, he would agree to meet with foreign leaders even if they were unfriendly regimes. Hillary's answer came next, and it was more nuanced and diplomatic: yes, but with the proper conditions to insure that she would not be used for propaganda purposes. Hillary's was instantly seen as the more seasoned approach, and I think that Obama would have taken the same position had he considered it beforehand. Of course, he couldn't change his position at this point, so he instead turned it into an artificial distinction which he's still defending today.
For this reason, it's not the position itself that worries me about Obama, but the fact that he's insecure and impressionable at this point in the way he arrives at these positions, obviously as a result of his inexperience." I completely, completely agree.
Hillary is indeed a much more seasoned politician, whether at home or abroad. She's thought the issues through to a greater extent than Obama has, and her amazing command of the issues during debates makes this readily apparent, especially as you see Obama next to her who is a smooth-talker, don't get me wrong, but has really just been parroting Hillary's policies back at us. Moreover Hillary so well received in the world and has dealt with international relations so much more than Obama has, she's been in the White House before, learned from past mistakes, and she has Bill on her team, who is an asset (but a lot of people diagree with me on that.... as Tina Fey says, "'Cause that would be terrible, having two intelligent, qualified people in the White House.").
Some more stuff that I was telling another pro-Obama friend earlier when we were talking specifically against Hillary's foreign policy and her unwillingness to say that she'd meet with leaders of hostile nations in the first year of her presidency without preconditions:
"First of all, Hillary knows better than to get us into something like Kuwait, Vietnam or Iraq. Those are instances of all-out military action, and those examples are way unrealistic/totally out of proportion when the issue at hand is whether or not the president would engage in a totally open door policy and risk being used for propaganda purposes. Also, you’re acting like Hillary isn’t willing to talk to ANYONE at all. She’s willing to talk to these leaders with reasonable preconditions set forth by the U.S. It’s not like she’s going to keep the US in the “isolationist paranoid state” that it’s in. Her ability in international relations will restore our image abroad. She’s just going to be more careful in doing so than Obama will be and is wise to not make rash, full out promises about what she may or may not do during her first year in term.
Beyond this, what I was MORE trying to say was (as my good friend Klaus presented the argument to me), that it’s the way that Obama has arrived at his position that is far more troubling than the issue at hand (Hillary’s unwillingness to talk to hostile countries without preconditions). In other words, in this case, it’s not really about the issue, or their distinctions when dealing with the issue, because they’re just creating these differences so that their supporters will have something tangible to cling to that makes one distinct from the other. You’re clinging to Obama’s stance on foreign policy, I’m clinging to Hillary’s on healthcare, we’re all guilty of it, and that’s exactly what they’re trying to get us to do. However, you say it’s unfair to Obama to say that he hasn’t given his policies enough thought, and this is where we fundamentally disagree. I stand by what I said before. A lot of his platform has been parroted from and influenced directly by Hillary’s, that Obama had to arrive at his decision hastily when he was first asked about this particular aspect of foreign policy, and that he would have taken the more seasoned approach had he known how Hillary would respond. And I know you’re sick of hearing about experience, but yes, experience is the root of the matter. And I still value experience very highly, no matter how much you dismiss it. You say that sure, you can just get by without experience as long as you surround yourself with experienced people. Doesn’t that sound almost exactly like what Bush did?? Surround himself with these people and sit back and watch the nation go down the tube. I’d rather have a president who has a solid grounding in foreign policy and domestic issues him/herself as a result of having dealt with the same issues in the past. Executive power is more power than you think, and Bush was able to abuse it like none other.
But even if you want to put experience aside, what’s more important to you as far as issue differences go? Well, the only two issues on which they differ is foreign policy and helathcare. (foreign policy, BARELY even). So what's more important to you: Foreign policy or healthcare? For me, it’s more healthcare. Don’t get me wrong, foreign policy is a high on the list/legit concern…I spent a few weeks in Egypt over winter break and some time in Dubai before that and realize how legitimately frustrated the entire Arab world/Mid East is with us right now. But this is a result of the current administration, and if you think that a seasoned politician like Hillary is going to perpetuate that, you are completely wrong, which is why her seasoned, cautious stance doesn't worry me a lot. If healthcare is at the top the list of issues you strongly value (like it is for me), Hillary clearly comes out on top. The argument that her healthcare plan failed in the past is so it won't get through this time is lame. It's precisely because of the kind of people that Obama has working on his healthcare plan that Hillary's mandated universal healthcare plan failed in '93. Hillary's learned from the past and won't repeat mistakes that were made.
So when Krugman says that "Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his efforts," I think this is what he's referring to. It's a big jump to say you'd meet with hostile leaders without preconditions during your first year in office. And now if he's elected, he'll have to uphold that statement, even if its not in our best interests. It was an unseasoned, hasty response.
Obama has a personality cult, whether you believe it or not. Hillary is still the machine slash bitch subject to Clinton Rules, and Obama is the motivator, who can bring change because he's so "likeable" and "charismatic" and "nonpolarizing" and all those fuzzy vomit-inducing words. And these reasons for supporting Obama are the ones that I have little to no respect for at all. While a lot of people say that the fact that Hillary is polarizing is a legitimate concern, I personally don't think that it will hinder her ability to execute policy and create change. Take Bush for example. What other person could alienate liberals (hell, even republicans) more?? And yet look at how much he's expanded executive power to push his agendas through. If dear Bushie can do it, then Hillary can too. Puh-leease.
I end this extended soapbox with the statement, that I wouldn't mind Obama as a president. Sure he's inexperienced and doesn't have as strong of a command on policies as Hillary, but he's an intelligent man with a progressive agenda that I like. Of course, I would prefer Hillary because she's not only intelligent with a virtually identical progressive agenda, but she's not parroting her policies off of another politician. She's got her policies grounded in experience, and as a result, her command of the issues is stronger. Obama is just "change change change," but I have more confidence in Hillary being able to make change successful because of her constantly seasoned approach to the issues, which stem from her experience. But if Obama gets this, then hey. Mild disappointment, but it's OK. He's not so bad, and if I learn to look beyond his inexperience (in Hillary's shadow), I'll learn to like him in short time.
BUT like Krugman said, if Hillary ends up becoming the nominee, and if the Obama supporters out there care about anything substantial beyond hero worship, and they should want her to win against McCain. But I get the sinking feeling that a LOT of voters out there could care less about anything beyond hero-worshipping, and are voting for Obama to either go with the tide, or because he's more "like-able," "charismatic," and "nonpolarizing," not because of the host of other qualities that I think are far more important that Hillary clearly has the edge on.
