I've never quite understood the deep-seated loathing and worshipful adulation of Hillary Clinton. People either love her or hate her. Well, most people anyway. I never found her worth that much energy one way or the other. Yes, she was smart and funny. Yes, she was condescending and nasty. Okay, whatever. Is she worth that much energy and attention? I never thought so.
Therefore, I was taken with this Brian Micklethwait piece on the politics of identity. It's probably the closest to a rational explanation of Hillary's fans and detractors I've ever seen.
More interesting to me, however, was Micklewaith's discussion of the new international political left, and what it's coming to stand for. It reminds me of something I've said before: we're in the middle of a massive political realignment, and the real conflict of the early 21st century isn't going to be so-called "liberals" vs. so-called "conservatives." It's between libertarian-oriented neoliberals (or "neocons" as some wrongly label them) and Transnational Progressives. If you haven't heard of the latter, you should probably read The Ideological War Within the West by John Fonte. I think he's on to something big here. It helps explain why today's Left is so intellectually diffuse, unfocused, and shrill, while the Right is fairly confident and straightforward. It's because America's Left hasn't, in its heart, decided where exactly it wants to go.
Transnational progressivism is probably the direction most of them want to take, whether they realize it or not. Which is particularly interesting because it will cause some people who used to be ideological adversaries to make common cause with each other. But then, that's what a political realignment is, isn't it?
Sorry, Dean, Micklethwait lost me when he quoted Andrew Sullivan. This quote:
Mention her name in some contexts and what you get is an irrational, near-hysterical tirade.
...describes Andrew Sullivan's reaction to Hillary Clinton, more often than not.
BTW, for those of you who think that Sully plays fast and loose with the facts, you might enjoy http://www.sullywatch.blogspot.com/
OK, it's on blogspot (boo!) but it's pretty decent.
Re: Hillary -- I'm with you. I don't hate her and I don't love her. Regardless, I certainly wouldn't underestimate her.
I didn't find the Micklewaith piece particularly compelling, but I was very interested in the Fonte piece. Where I often find myself politically seems somewhere in between the liberal democratists and the transnational progressives, in that I generally think the LD framework is a good one BUT the TNPs raise many issues that deserve serious consideration (although IMO not always the outcome they propose). I happen to think that the problems Fonte would say the TNPs have with LD are not inherent characteristics of LD but particular characteristics of the American system (for instance, the political power wielded by corporations).
The political power wielded by corporations is not necessarily isolated to the American system. In the French system, which has strong ties to TNP, the influence of its major oil company in the political dealings with the Middle East is pretty well documented.
I would argue that corporations have far more political power in Europe than they do in the U.S., where their power is hugely exaggerated.
In more socialist democracies, corporate and government interinvolvement, cronyism, protecting established interests, and influence-peddling are much greater. The more the state involves itself in corporate affairs, the less small businesses can compete, and the more prices tend to be rigged.
I find it interesting that in the U.S., where corporate power is more diffuse and limited, we are so paranoid of their power.
Dean, might I suggest you read first Gary Aldrich's book, written in the 90s...for the life of me I cant remember the exact title... "Unlimited Access" or something to that effect. He was FBI/White House security for a long time from Carter through Bush 41. His was the first book to give a heads up on what kind of 60s leftover criminals were allowed into the heart of the White House.
You also need to read Barbara Olsen's first book "Hell to Pay."
I'd also like to suggest The American Conservative Union's pamphlet about Hildebeast's bid to take over 1/7th of the nations economy through the health care program. You may be able to objectively view the former First Lady as just another politician, but I for one take her presence in my nation's government as a threat, even to the point of the personal. To make a long story short, Dean, if her plan had gone through in 1993, my daughter, who was a preemie, and I may not have survived the directives her health care plan would have implemented against me. I often wonder if under her plan, my doctor would have been ORDERED to perform a partial-birth abortion, and denied me the three liters of blood that would have replaced the three I deposited on my bedroom floor and operating table.
Think I exaggerate? Read those books. Hildebeast is a Marxist pig and needs to be WATCHED. Not just carefully. Unmercifully, til the moment she takes her last breath...and even then, a guard put on her grave, cause I'd be among those that would wish to erase it.
Please forgive the emotional outburst, but I do have my reasons for thinking PIAPS (Pig in a Pantsuit) is more than just a ridiculous politician. I am no conspiracy-theorist, but I do believe their one goal in life is to be in a position of absolute power. There have been signposts for a long time and I often wonder at the people who haven't noticed them, even now.
I might also add that John Derbyshire wrote an excellent article discussing the shift in politics going on. He says the Clinton era was the "End of Politics" and that we are seeing the parties that exist straining to find a new purpose and platform. For my own part, I am thankful the "conservatives" (which take home mostly within the Republican Party) have a better grip on things. It may be that extra millimeter that we need to get ahead of the game, something those who believe in a representative republic have not had for AGES.
Well quite honestly Sharon, I'm skeptical. It's hard for me to take such accusations any more seriously than the "Bush lied!" folks, or the "John Ashcroft wants to force everyone to be straight white Christians" line.
Setting up a nationalized health care system may be something you think is a bad idea, but is it an evil idea? I think we should get some sense of perspective about these things.
Dean, yes, national health care WOULD be quote/unquote evil, especially as Hillary had it set up. Gary Aldrich and Barbara Olsen were in excellent positions to know what maneuvers were taking place at the behest of the Clintons. Gary Aldrich was with the FBI and in charge of putting new staff to the White House through THOROUGH background checks. He has quite a few stories to tell how the Clintons sent him and the FBI in circles over new staff.
Barbara Olsen was a lawyer in DC...her husband Ted Olsen was the one who argued in defense of GW Bush during the Florida mess. I met her when she was promoting her first book "Hell To Pay" in Houston. VERY nice lady. She was among those killed when those bastards sent the plane into the Pentagon...she was calling her husband up on the cell phone, calm as could be before it crashed, trying to relay messages. HER book spells out in more detail some of the mechanisms through which PIAPS attempted the national health care system.
Please try to find those books and read them. If I were to look into the "Bush Lied" camp and found overwhelming evidence of obfuscation and betrayal, not only of this country's principles, but of fellow staff and party fellowships (as happened with those who dealth with the Clintons), then I would end up looking and sounding feeble...and deservedly so.
But I have yet to see anyone come out with any definitive evidence that its "all about the oil" or that "he lied" about the WMD. Frankly, I think its about time someone decided to renew the efforts to put the heat on anyone who obtained WMD, because for some reason everyone thougth the wall coming down in Berlin was the end of that. Personally, I am glad that even without Saddam Hussein to contend with, the fact that people took shots at the US using innocent civilians and cowardly tactics to renew hostilities, with threats of more is enough for me. If some thug dictator gets taken out in teh process, all the better. And the fact that children were rescued and women given relief from rape rooms is plenty of reason for me to say "We should have gone to war."
NO, I do NOT like sending our men and women into danger. Never would I think that ONE soldier is "expendable" or "collateral damage." But the Clintons did, as evidenced with their usary of the military in Somalia and Haiti...and Waco, Texas...and Miami, Florida.
I"ll post exactly why I don't think National Health Care, in regards to HILLARY Care would be such a good thing.
Ara, in this respect I stand with "Bogey."
In Casablanca (I think; Lorre was there for sure) Peter Lorre asks him "You despise me, don't you?"
Bogart replies "If I gave it any thought I would..."
Me, I think she's a prostitute of the worst sort: she sold herself for political power. If nothing else she remained married to a self-confessed aldulterer in the hope that he would be elected president. When that happened she swallowed the worst sort of humiliation for herself (and, worse yet, for her daughter) during the "Monica affair" so that Willie would back her for a Senatorial seat.
But I don't dwell about it. She is, at worst, yet another stock-jobbing, pork-barrelling, power-broking DC junkie who honestly believes that power comes from being elected, instead of the other way around.
She has lots of company.
I doubt she has much chance of election in '04, and likely less than that in '08, although I will admit there is a remote possiblity that she gets the nomination.
I suppose most the time when I feel "I can't stand that woman," it is in reaction to the deifiers out there. As the saying goes, she "ain't all that."
I wrote about this issue here, inspired by the debate about political labels that ensued from Michael Totten's essay.
This isn't new. There has been a strong identity component to any political stance since politics became a game the average Joe or Jane could play.
Hi Dean...I did as promised. I gave my full response in my post on my blog. I did not write it to start a war. Just simply lay out in detail why I think the way I do about Hillary Clinton.
Looks like Sharon is running out of food supplies in her Y2K meltdown bunker...of course, many Americans (like myself) feel that the Clinton health plan was basically a sound idea built on a good premise (the fact that quality health care is a right, not a priviledge for Americans). Of course, when a group hates someone as much as the extreme right hates the Clintons, they will spend fortunes trying to fight the ideas they espouse whether or not the ideas are noble and worth trying.
Do you know why the right is obsessed with the Clintons? Because they (the Clintons) have kicked right wing ass for the last 10 years and will continue to as long as they remain in the public eye. Thankfully, the right's maniacal obsession with them will fuel the fire for years to come. Thanks from the left.
Tim
Oh, for the double post go I....
Sharon, I re-read your and it was more vile and disgusting the second time I read it. There are politicians on both the left and right I don't agree with at all, but I would hardly refer to them as "pigs". (not even Pat Robertson)
The breakdown in civility in public discourse, especially on blogs is disheartening....and, yet, I lower myself to take part in it. It's like an addiction. Dean, it is my resolve to remain civil in my posts, but some it seems that vulgar ideologies bring out the worst (best?) in me. I don't know where to turn.
ATTENTION PLEASE: US CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT TRYING TO SCREW OVER THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA!!! OR START A NEW WORLD ORDER, OR PUT US UNDER CONTROL OF THE UNITED NATIONS. Got that?
Good.
Tim
(Keneau Reeves hat on)
Whoa!
(/Keneau Reeves hat off)
Tim, I have a couple of major disagreements with your posts immediately before mine, but right now I must say: chill, bro... :)
It's ok. There are misguided souls out there. You know, like Democrats and stuff... (ok, just kidding about that)
Extremists are irritating from either side. Just don't let 'em get under your skin, bud.
Tim, why not post your objections calmly and rationally on Sharon's site?
But Tim is doing exactly what I expect from someone who refuses to view government in rational terms. Note that his one and only argument against my position against national health care is that I am just some dumb right wing broad clinging to the idiocies of Y2K...
Never mind that I was pooh-poohing the whole Y2K mess amidst not a too few hysterical people, conservative AND socialist.
And I have yet to see ANYONE take up my suggestion to read the books I recommended reading. Does anyone know of counterweight books/tomes/documents that would disprove what Aldrich, Olsen, and the American Conservative Union asserted???? HMMMMM????? The fact that I actually took the time to read something should say more about my efforts to formulate my own position...unlike a blog-drifter who speedreads a couple of words and then posts his screed like another Maureen Dowd.
yeah yeah, Tim, you think I'm nuts...that's fine by me. At least we're on opposite sides of the line and I can see you exactly for what YOU are. Which is where I want to keep Hildebeast.
And like I ended my post on my own blogsite, it will do you no good to call me extremist and obsessed. If they keep sticking it in the camera, what else can you expect but a full anal examination? You want people to stop talking about the Clintons? Then tell the Beasts to get out of America's face.
Otherwise, they are YOUR albatross...not mine.
Oh, and Tim?
You write like a girl.
A few weeks ago, in a response to an Andrew Sullivan article, I discussed why my family switched to the Republican party in 1972, and why, even though I do not agree with many positions of the Republican party, I was nevertheless a contributing member of it.
The gist of my statement was that the Democratic party had ceased to be a party. Rather, it was a collection of disparate groups whose only bonds were 1) a self-righteous sense of victimhood, 2) a preference for judicial fiat over slow, inefficient (and therefore tyrant resistant) legislative solutions, and 3) an arrogant sense of superiority.
After reading this article about "trans-nationalism," I begin to see how the Democratic party stays together. Scary.
I also read this week Tom Paine's "Common Sense." This little pamphlet which helped spawn the Revolution should be required reading in our schools. Maybe, after reading it, our children would be more suspicious of the "good" that government can do. Paraphrase: The best government is the one that governs least.
I believe that there exist some evil in the world that hates freedom. I am not a conspiratorialist, but I do believe that maintaining freedom requires vigilance. These blogs help maintain that vigilance. Thanks Dean and every other blogger.
Allison,
"The fact that I actually took the time to read something should say more about my efforts to formulate my own position..."
Is that your answer? Please don't expect me to believe that because you read something, it makes you enlightened to the motives of a senator from New York. Maybe you should be reading the directions on your prescription medication a little more and stay out of the liquor cabinet during school nights. Anyway, Dean's world is not the place to discuss the fact that you're reading the wrong fucking books. Off to bed.....girls need plenty of rest.
Tim