Political Bullying

Politics is about compromise, listening and working out what’s best, while making sure everyone saves face and at least something gets done for the good of everybody.

 

No, that’s diplomacy. Politics is about competition and power, belittling those who hold opposing views and ramming through your policies, then stepping back and smiling condescendingly down on your humiliated and defeated foe. 

 

It’s easy to mix up which is which – for the last eight years we’ve had an administration that operated both domestically and internationally on the assumption that compromise is, in fact, simply moral and intellectual weakness, and also that compromise doesn’t impress anyone. Politics and diplomacy were one. Compromise and you lose power domestically – people don’t vote for you. They think you don’t really believe in all that you said was important. Internationally, listen and work out compromises, and the many madmen in this sorry world will, assuming you are weak, launch terrorist attacks that will kill tens of thousands of Americans. Neville Chamberlain is the model there.

 

This is just a given now – most people, busy with their own lives, working, worrying about the kids and the bills – find the basic assumption reasonable enough. Compromise is weakness, and weakness is both dangerous and fundamentally wrong, on a very deep level, and those who compromise are not to be trusted. There is a certain logic to it all.

 

As far as domestic politics go, this wasn’t always so. A hero of the past, but now obscure for obvious reasons, was Henry Clay (1777-1852), the Great Compromiser. He is no longer a model for how governance works best, and if anyone remembered him at all, he’d be a bit of a villain now. At the time Clay was a major supporter of the American System – a high tariff to support internal stuff like road-building, and a national bank to encourage business enterprise and assure a stable national currency – and he brokered compromises on the slavery issue in 1820 and 1850, even if, eventually, we had to have that war about the matter. Clay held that war off for a bit. Perhaps that was a good thing. He was just trying to be sensible. In 1957, a Senate committee chaired by John F. Kennedy named Clay as one of the five greatest senators in American history – something that would not happen today. Abraham Lincoln was a great admirer of Henry Clay, but now that’s only mentioned in passing – times have changed. People remember Lincoln for freeing the slaves and winning the war, not for admiring that man who held things together, however imperfectly, for so long. Now we admire those who never compromise.

 

And we seem to gleefully thrive on conflict. Denver will host the Democratic National Convention in late August, so it is perhaps to be expected that ABC-7 in Denver would pick up on this story:

 

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

 

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

 

“Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don’t elect Democrats,” Limbaugh said during Wednesday’s radio broadcast. He then went on to say that’s the best thing that could happen to the country.

 

It seemed Limbaugh rambled on about Al Sharpton, who had said that “there’s going to be trouble” if the presidency “is taken from Obama.” Limbaugh’s callers actually turned on him, saying he was inciting a riot and all that, but he was careful in his clarification – “I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver.” He said it was like dreaming of a white Christmas. The word “white” kind of stands out, but it comes down to this:

 

Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called “Operation Chaos,” the people on the far left would look bad.

 

“There won’t be riots at our convention,” Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. “We don’t riot. We don’t burn our cars. We don’t burn down our houses. We don’t kill our children. We don’t do half the things the American left does.”

 

He believes electing Democrats will hurt America’s security and economy and appeared to call on his listeners to make sure that doesn’t happen.

 

“We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We’re the only one in charge of our affairs. We don’t farm out our defense if we elect Democrats … and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don’t elect Democrats. And that’s the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think,” Limbaugh said.

 

Henry Clay would not be impressed – but Clay is forgotten these days.

 

See Marc Ambinder here, discussing Floyd Brown, the man who created the Willie Horton ads and now has one on Obama (there’s a link to it at the Ambinder comment). He notes Brown is now asking the readers of Newsmax to help fund his efforts:

 

Make no mistake. There are people in the United States who despise America… hate America… and hate our way of life. Barack Hussein Obama is THEIR CANDIDATE and they will do everything in their power to make sure that patriotic Americans do not understand exactly how dangerous Barack Hussein Obama really is. They’ll hide his record and his past and they’ll tar-and-feather his opposition.

 

Newsmax was created and is funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the millionaire publisher from Pittsburgh who financed the Arkansas Project – the effort to impeach Bill Clinton and prove that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster, and that her husband had many others murdered. Scaife now endorses Hillary Clinton, and she accepts his endorsement. It’s all very strange.

 

Yes, that tar-and-feather business. People have been picking on Hillary Clinton, and perhaps unfairly, at times.

 

Of course a lot of that comes from the middle-left, like Rosa Brooks in the Los Angeles Times offering her version of what Clinton has been saying in My Winning Strategy:

 

Forget the delegates, the rules, the votes: I deserve it. …

 

Start with the delegates. How is it fair for the Democratic nominee to be selected mostly by elected delegates? Sure, it’s in the Democratic Party rules. But let me ask you: Is this a country of rules? Once again, take a look at our current president. Does he let rules bother him? Laws? He does not!

 

He believes in power, and he’s made it clear that not even Congress’ laws bind him when he’s exercising his executive prerogatives. The same principle should be applied to me when I’m exercising my prerogatives as would-be executive.

 

On that theme, let me remind our party’s pledged delegates of another thing: Just because you made a pledge doesn’t mean you have to keep it.

 

For instance, I pledged in August 2007 not to campaign or participate in states that broke Democratic Party rules by holding early primaries – as in Florida and Michigan. But you don’t see me sticking to that pledge, do you? I kept my name on the Michigan ballot when Obama honored the pledge and withdrew – which just goes to show you, he’s too naive to be president — and I swore that the Michigan vote “is not going to count for anything.” But guess what? I had my fingers crossed!

 

You “pledged” Obama delegates, do you catch my meaning?

 

All this may be true, and telling, but the tone is not reasonable, in that Henry Clay way. And Brooks ends with this:

 

Take anagrams: My name, rearranged, spells out “Only I can thrill.” My opponent’s full name, rearranged, forms “I am a hack, abuser, snob.” Given his history of elitism, I think this surely must be taken extremely seriously.

 

Superdelegates, it’s up to you now. Are you going to let arbitrary factors like elected delegates and votes influence your decisions? Or are you going to focus on the most important issue, which is that I believe I ought to be president?

 

Everyone is angry, and gleefully into confrontation.

 

A commenter at The National Review gets to the actual heart of matter:

 

For all of Hillary’s brand recognition, institutional advantages (including the ferocious support of a former president), fund-raising head start and inherent appeal to the party’s core constituency (working class white women), she finds herself on the ropes, in debt and having to go hugely negative just to stay alive. Does any sane Democrat really think that this is a viable alternative to Obama?

 

And she does have her supporters, like this Los Angeles Times reader, with a letter on the facing page to Brooks:

 

People complain that Clinton will do anything it takes to win, as if that’s a negative trait. She’s exactly the candidate Democrats need to go up against the Republicans, who keep the middle and lower classes getting the short end of the stick. We’re not electing a PTA president. We finally have the chance for a tough, savvy leader. Let’s not blow it.

 

Melanie Rothschild

Topanga

 

And there’s always Maya Angelou:

 

Hillary does not waver in standing up for those who need a champion. She has always been a passionate protector of families. As a child, she was taught that all God’s children are equal, and as a mother, she understood that her child wasn’t safe unless all children were safe. As I wrote about Hillary recently in a praise song: “She is the prayer of every woman, and every man who longs for fair play, healthy families, good schools and a balanced economy.”

 

It may be easy to view Hillary Clinton through the narrow lens of those who would write her off or grind her down. Hillary sees us as we are, black and brown and white and yellow and pink and relishes our differences knowing that fundamentally we are all more alike than we are unalike. She is able to look through complexion and see community.

 

She has endured great scrutiny, and still she dares greatly. Hillary Clinton will not give up on you, and all she asks is that you do not give up on her. She is a long-distance runner. I am honored to say I am with her for the long run.

 

I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I know that she will make the most positive difference in people’s lives and she will help our country become what it can be. Whether you are her supporter, leaning towards her, undecided, or supporting someone else, I believe Hillary Clinton will represent you – she will be a president for all Americans. It is no small thing that along the way we will make history together.

 

There’s not much specific there – it’s a character reference. But then, people do make a bit too much of this ambition thing, as Kevin Drum notes here:

 

And for all the talk about how ambitious Hillary is, does anyone really doubt that McCain has her well beaten on that score? He ran as a conservative bulldog in 2000, he moderated his positions and seriously considered switching parties to run as VP in 2004, and then switched back to Mr. Conservative afterward to prep for yet another run in 2008. McCain really, really, REALLY wants to be president. Isn’t it about time someone noticed that?

 

So it’s time to be realistic. McCain wants to be president, Clinton wants to be president, and such things happen. Obama wants to be both president and Henry Clay, and other things happen. People should relax. What did you expect?

 

And sometimes people are just unfair, as Media Matters notes here:

 

During the April 22 edition of MSNBC Live, guest host David Shuster said to senior campaign correspondent Tucker Carlson: “Before we get to predictions, Tucker, I want to present you … It’s a pen. It’s ‘Jabber Jaw Pen’ and when you listen to it here.”

 

At this point, Shuster pressed the top of the pen – a likeness of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s head – and the mouth began to move as the pen began audibly laughing.

 

After the pen stopped, Shuster continued: “[I]n honor of being on the air with you for the first time in a little while, I present to you with a Hillary laughing pen.”

 

In response, Carlson stated: “I can’t tell you, David, how much I appreciate this, how much I appreciate your going through Chris’ mail while he’s gone and how much I’m really going to miss that cackle. I hope it goes on forever. It’s brought light to my life.” Carlson also pressed the pen.

 

Shuster then said: “As we – to the refrain of Hillary cackling, let’s start with predictions tonight. What’s going to happen?”

 

At Talk Left, see Big Tent Democrat:

 

How could NBC possibly think this outrageous sexism could be acceptable? Fire David Shuster. NOW.

 

Perhaps those of us who support Obama wouldn’t go that far – demanding particular reporters should be fired is a bit of a bad precedent – but this was offensive. Of course it was also funny. Some thought Rush Limbaugh’s comments were funny. Perhaps there’s no reason to stop this stuff – just to recognize it as unfair, and silly.

 

Perhaps we should attend to the logic involved in what is happening, what with the Clinton folks basically saying she’s electable and Obama isn’t.

 

John Cole does that here:

 

If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can’t Hillary beat him?

 

Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months? Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?

 

Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?

 

Well, that would take some thinking. We don’t do that much, but Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the “Kos” of Daly Kos, tries out this answer: 

 

Because IF Obama wasn’t black, and IF millions of people weren’t supporting him, and IF he didn’t raise all that money, and IF his campaign hadn’t been run better than hers, and IF Red states hadn’t had the gall to vote, and IF those damn activists didn’t disagree with her on war in Iraq and nuking Iran, and IF MoveOn wasn’t so effective, and IF latte sippers didn’t vote, and IF we had the same system as Republicans, and IF the news networks weren’t more like Fox News, and IF small states that don’t matter didn’t count, and IF Keith Olbermann didn’t have it out for her, and IF Pennsylvania was the only state that mattered – then Clinton would be the nominee.

 

You know – simple answers to simple questions.

 

But finally it’s all too much detail for people, as one of Andrew Sullivan’s readers notes:

 

Almost all working class folks have about the same knowledge of politics as you and I have about cars. Which is to say, on one level, quite a lot, but it’s not what they devote their lives to understanding. So, as we do in the case of cars, they turn to other mechanisms, such as brand loyalty, to make their decisions.

 

What they know about Clinton is that she was a part of the Administration that spent eight years talking about issues that were important to them and presiding over an era of peace and prosperity. So what they are going on here is familiarity and positive experiences, the same thing that I do when I buy only Japanese cars. This is a perfectly reasonable way of going about doing things even if I might make a mistake and select a very high quality Japanese car (Hillary in this analogy) instead of a surprisingly better this year in spite of lack of experience American car (Obama). They are not suckers who are fooled by Hillary’s Crown Royal shot (perhaps if it had been JD) or whether Obama’s “bitter” comment represents the totality of his views any more than I am a sucker who is fooled (or influenced at all) by television advertisements for cars.

 

Sullivan:

 

I found out that a friend supported Clinton last night. I was stunned. I asked him why. He said he liked the 1990s, they were good times, he’d like them back. That was it. He had no real feelings about Obama, but he knew the Clinton name and associated it with good times. I pushed further. That was it. He’s a man who isn’t too interested in politics but knew enough to back the familiar. It may be that simple.

 

So that’s it? What about all the ins-an-outs of all the confrontations?

 

Political junkies would be wise to remember that they are the oddballs, and everyone should remember the long-forgotten Henry Clay.

 

About Alan

The editor is a former systems manager for a large California-based HMO, and a former senior systems manager for Northrop, Hughes-Raytheon, Computer Sciences Corporation, Perot Systems and other such organizations. One position was managing the financial and payroll systems for a large hospital chain. And somewhere in there was a two-year stint in Canada running the systems shop at a General Motors locomotive factory - in London, Ontario. That explains Canadian matters scattered through these pages. Otherwise, think large-scale HR, payroll, financial and manufacturing systems. A résumé is available if you wish. The editor has a graduate degree in Eighteenth-Century British Literature from Duke University where he was a National Woodrow Wilson Fellow, and taught English and music in upstate New York in the seventies, and then in the early eighties moved to California and left teaching. The editor currently resides in Hollywood California, a block north of the Sunset Strip.
This entry was posted in Attack Politics, Competition and Cooperation, Hardball Politics, Hillary Clinton, McCain, Obama, The Uses of History, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a comment