Random Question
I just remembered something that I had always wanted to ask you guys, and it's looking more and more like it will become relevant in the near future. So here it is: Why do people hate Hillary Clinton with such a passion? I was honestly always just confused by it. Well, actually, that also begs the question of why people hated Bill so much. And I mean even before the whole Monica thing. I mean like in 1992 people already hated him. Rush Limbaugh foamed at the mouth about him every single day for eight years (and probably beyond) and I just don't get it. I have to understand why people hated them so much during his presidency to understand how those views have evolved to whatever they are now. Can anyone enlighten me on this point? Anyone, anyone ...
posted by Sandi | 5:37 PM
13 Comments:
Having grown up in AR with Bill as governor, I have to say I never really understood the level of hatred, either. It was an amazing phenomenon, actually: everybody -- and I mean everybody -- one talked to professed undying hatred for the man, yet somehow, every 2 years, he won a majority of those people's votes.
As for Hillary, people in AR hated her because she was a city girl and from "up North." The national hatred, I dunno.
I personally wouldn't vote for her in a Democratic primary in 2008, but my reasons are way different from the hatred you're asking about.
I can't help, Sandi. I've wondered the same things. I've even asked a few folks, but no one can really answer with anything that resembles sense. At least not yet.
I think it's because:
1) She often comes across as cold and calculating, not grandmotherly (Barbara Bush) or submissive (not really the best descriptor for Laura Bush, but it's the best I could do).
2) She is ambitious. Many people resented her desire to tackle health care reform as first lady, when she should've taken on something less controversial (literacy or "Just say no").
3) She is a staunch advocate of women's rights. (This alone explains why Billy Bob Arkansan didn't care for her. And of course it puts her at severe odds with the Religious Right on a couple of their hottest hot-button issues.)
And, frankly, I think both she and Bill were often perceived as being more concerned about their political gains than they were about their own familial relationships.
But like JU and Al, I'm really not sure exactly why she's hated. I'm speaking for others here, and probably doing a bad job of it.
Yeah, the only thing that I know of as a specific criticism is the idea that they are insincere and will say anything to get ahead politically. Which appears, frankly, to have some truth to it -- but that's a product of the way our political system works and is true almost across the board. So for that quality to cause so much hatred specifically of them (as opposed to any other politician in either party) strikes me as unfair. I would appreciate the hell out of any politician who simply stood up for what she or he believed in and didn't bow to public pressure ... but that person would not have a very successful career, as far as I can tell.
The idea of her as cold is interesting. I have two thoughts about it. One is that there may be a component of that that involves gender-role expectations (I seem to remember Barbara Bush being thought of similarly, although not with the vitriol since she was not publicly involved in policymaking). The other is that for better or worse, political campaigning is about likeability and it doesn't really matter how good a person you are or how smart or whatever because if people don't want to have a beer with you, they will vote for the person they do want to have a beer with. That's why I would be the worst politician ever in the history of the world -- I'm very aloof to people I don't know well. I'm very friendly, kind, generous, loyal, etc. once you get to know me, but I can't establish that kind of familiarity in two minutes. I don't typically make friends with cashiers at the grocery store and stuff like that, and people who do are the ones who are good at politics.
Maybe the "cold and calculating" criticism is meant more in the policy sense though, and even though there is definitely evidence of at the very least changes in emphasis, this type of thing seems so prevalent that it doesn't explain everything. I mean even GWB (who I don't "hate" in the sense of wishing him death or whatever, I just think he has poor character) has shifted emphasis on policy priorities and failed to live up to campaign promises, etc. I'm sure there are exceptions ... does anyone know of a politician who has not made these kinds of changes?
And that brings up another interesting question about politicians, which is whether they are allowed to change their minds on a policy issue because they learn more about it and the evidence points them in a different direction, or because they have a change of heart, or whatever. I assume we're all glad that Strom Thurmond disavowed segregation, right? How do we distinguish when someone has a sincere reason for changing her or his mind from just saying whatever will get them elected?
Sorry, but I have to comment on Whitney's irritation that Hillary did not leave her husband after he cheated on her. Are you serious?
I thought that was odd, too, Whitney. I'd like you to elaborate.
Slightly off-topic, I'm reminded of the many religious people I know who were actually madder after Clinton said he had repented of his sin. I can only assume they were waiting for a personal apology. :-)
Whitney, thanks for clarifying.
Intent is indeed a big part of everything, and I'm not so sure W gets a free pass there. There's certainly room for doubt regarding his reasons for invading Iraq.
As for presidential philandering, wasn't Bush #1 accused of such, too? (Not meaning to be partisan there; I thought I remembered hearing something about that a long time ago.)
Thanks, Whitney. The way it was written sure didn't sound like you were laughing, which prompted my question. I'm glad you didn't mean it that way.
I thought her willingness to defy the perceived stereotype to which you refer was admirable, but that's just me.
I don't think it's that surprising that she didn't leave. After that many years, you have a lot invested in your marriage, I assume. And I don't think that feminism dictates that you must leave a relationship after infidelity. I was surprised that she was (or claimed to be) surprised by it, after all of the other stories about various people that had preceded the Monica incident. My friends and I had long speculated that they had a "deal" about extracurriculars. And if they did or do, then I think that's their business. If it was actual cheating and he didn't have prior permission, then that is definitely a character flaw -- as he has openly admitted in front of God and everybody. But I still have a hard time believing that this was the first time the issue had come up in their marriage and that she was actually surprised or even hurt by it. I think all of that was a big show. Maybe I'm too cynical. But my impression is that a lot of Democrats think this, and so that's at least in part why they didn't get too exercised about Monica. After all, infidelity is not about sex, it's about secrecy. The secrecy is the thing that really makes it a betrayal.
Terry,
Picking up on your earlier comment that Hillary is a staunch advocate of women's rights ... do you mean pro-choice or other things too? I'm having a hard time recalling policy stances she's taken that would fit that description other than being pro-choice.
Ambitious, yes, definitely. People are still uncomfortable with that to some extent. That baking cookies comment will never go away (although I thought it was pretty funny).
Now that I think about it, all of your points (cold and calculating unlike other women who are grandmotherly or submissive, supporter of women's rights, and ambitious) go to gender issues. Whaddya know about that? But those don't explain why people hated Bill so much. Beyond the rumors of philandering, what was it that people hated so much about him?
Since I'm shooting from the lip today, I'll take a stab at the Bill Clinton hatred theory:
Bill was/is seen as the classic political shmoozer, i.e. used car salesman. The perception was that he would/could lie to your face if it would get him what he wanted.
Regarding Hillary: I think the pro-choice thing rankles some folk. But probably the bigger issue for the Bible Belt folk is the perception that "this woman don't know her place."
In their (mullet-ized) world, a smart and opinionated woman is a real threat.
We know Bush acted on faulty intelligence . . . but I don't for one second believe it was intentional. What Clinton did was 100% intentional.
I hear arguments along these same lines from conservatives (and the so-called liberal media) quite a bit; equating Bush's WMD misstep with Clinton's Monica misstep. I'm not a huge Clinton fan, but I have to say I think this is an incredibly flawed argument. From the standpoint of job performance as president, those 2 missteps (or whatever one wants to call them) are in no way equivalent. Pres. Bush knew his decision to invade Iraq would have huge consequences for the country, even if he was right about WMD. It was a presidential decision, and a presidential mistake. Pres. Clinton had no reason to think his decision to have extramarital sex would affect the country in any way at all. (Nor should it have.) It was a personal decision and a political mistake.
Maybe I'm just less intention-oriented than others. To me, the difference in intentionality between those 2 acts of those 2 presidents is completely irrelevant to what the 2 acts say about their relative competency to serve as president. Clinton's lapse in judgement had nothing to do with the rest of us; Bush's did.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled conversation.
I wasn't actually responding to you in particular, Whitney, but to that general line of argument, which I've heard from lots of sources.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Post a Comment
<< Home