I've been thinking back on the Clinton campaign of 1992 , and contrasting it to the one of 2016. Admittedly we're talking about two different Clintons, but it's still a comparison worth making. In my memory that was a far more civil election, kinder and gentler, to borrow a phrase from the era.
I'm going to leave the Trumpster out of this equation as far as possible. That's not to defend him or his proposals and rhetoric. I intend the opposite. He's just so far beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour that he should be dismissed out of hand. I'd rather consider the campaigning style of Hillary.
In 1964 historian Richard Hofstadter wrote an essay for Harper's, later expanded into a book, entitled" the Paranoid Style in American Politics". He was writing about the Goldwater campaign that year. Goldwater ,according to Hofstadter, drew much of his support from conspiracy theorists on the right who were all too willing to believe the worst about their political opponents. Hofstadter may have forgotten that this paranoia thing works both ways. Maybe he just ran out of space. I can understand that as a occasional essayist myself. He might have pointed out that the Johnson landslide that year was largely the result of his campaign painting Goldwater as a raving lunatic and a warmonger who couldn't be trusted with America's considerable military might. Did paranoia play a role in that election? Oh yea!
So going back to 1992, did Bill Clinton accuse the elder George Bush of secretly wanting to drag us into war, or drop atomic weapons on our enemies, or disenfranchise large swathes of our population through voter reform, eliminate Social Security, or any other of these reliable shibboleths from the Democrat playbook? I don't recall any of that. I remember a very smart campaign manager deciding that those approaches were a little timeworn and frayed, and anyhow would have a hard time sticking to this opponent. Afterall, we already knew George Bush. The campaign was primarily over the economy. It asked in who's hands should it to be entrusted? The people chose Clinton. You may remember he didn't do that bad a job with it either, though it hurts to say so.
The Clinton of this presidential campaign is a little different, or is it the times that have changed? She can, and does criticize the economic plans and track record of what's his name, and contrast those with her own, but there's lots of the other stuff too. The sad part is that her opponent gives her so much ammunition. He can't help himself. I mean that. He really is unable to help himself or control himself. In our entire history we may never have seen a candidate for high office like this one. Like a child that's been chewing on lead paint flakes from the windowsills all his life, there's no impulse control in him, no judgement, little reason or self awareness either. Shouldn't she be running on that?
Instead it's back to the playbook. Republicans are racist, anti-environment, religious bigots, authoritarian, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, just whateverphobic. If you can name a phobia, they've probably got it. It's a wonder they find the courage to get out of bed each morning. In this century, the old chestnuts of the paranoid playbook return from the grave, are dusted off and polished, and low and behold they work as well as ever.
I'm not against name calling if the name fits. I can't stand it when the only reason for bringing it out is that it works. You score a few points but have poisoned the process. Worse than all that, you've decreased social trust, and confidence. Scapegoating, conspiracy mongering, stereotyping are all back in style and that's too bad.
Imagine politics minus paranoia. It's easy if you try. How about honest policy discussions? How about giving the other side credit wherever credit is due? How about not demonizing them, or always ascribing to them the lowest motivations when other options are available? It goes without saying that this plea is meant for everyone. My side is hardly blameless. I've been an avid listener to political talk radio for decades. I can hardly listen anymore because I can't stand the unfair accusations and stereotyping that are so commonplace lately. My paranoia tolerance is failing me. These days I limit my listening to NPR, and the few radio shows that still respect fair play, and tolerance, John Batchelor for instance, and Armstrong and Getty.
I'm imagining politics with respect and tolerance right now. I pick up the newspaper and strangely ,it's not there.
Fly high GB.
I'm going to leave the Trumpster out of this equation as far as possible. That's not to defend him or his proposals and rhetoric. I intend the opposite. He's just so far beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour that he should be dismissed out of hand. I'd rather consider the campaigning style of Hillary.
In 1964 historian Richard Hofstadter wrote an essay for Harper's, later expanded into a book, entitled" the Paranoid Style in American Politics". He was writing about the Goldwater campaign that year. Goldwater ,according to Hofstadter, drew much of his support from conspiracy theorists on the right who were all too willing to believe the worst about their political opponents. Hofstadter may have forgotten that this paranoia thing works both ways. Maybe he just ran out of space. I can understand that as a occasional essayist myself. He might have pointed out that the Johnson landslide that year was largely the result of his campaign painting Goldwater as a raving lunatic and a warmonger who couldn't be trusted with America's considerable military might. Did paranoia play a role in that election? Oh yea!
So going back to 1992, did Bill Clinton accuse the elder George Bush of secretly wanting to drag us into war, or drop atomic weapons on our enemies, or disenfranchise large swathes of our population through voter reform, eliminate Social Security, or any other of these reliable shibboleths from the Democrat playbook? I don't recall any of that. I remember a very smart campaign manager deciding that those approaches were a little timeworn and frayed, and anyhow would have a hard time sticking to this opponent. Afterall, we already knew George Bush. The campaign was primarily over the economy. It asked in who's hands should it to be entrusted? The people chose Clinton. You may remember he didn't do that bad a job with it either, though it hurts to say so.
The Clinton of this presidential campaign is a little different, or is it the times that have changed? She can, and does criticize the economic plans and track record of what's his name, and contrast those with her own, but there's lots of the other stuff too. The sad part is that her opponent gives her so much ammunition. He can't help himself. I mean that. He really is unable to help himself or control himself. In our entire history we may never have seen a candidate for high office like this one. Like a child that's been chewing on lead paint flakes from the windowsills all his life, there's no impulse control in him, no judgement, little reason or self awareness either. Shouldn't she be running on that?
Instead it's back to the playbook. Republicans are racist, anti-environment, religious bigots, authoritarian, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, just whateverphobic. If you can name a phobia, they've probably got it. It's a wonder they find the courage to get out of bed each morning. In this century, the old chestnuts of the paranoid playbook return from the grave, are dusted off and polished, and low and behold they work as well as ever.
I'm not against name calling if the name fits. I can't stand it when the only reason for bringing it out is that it works. You score a few points but have poisoned the process. Worse than all that, you've decreased social trust, and confidence. Scapegoating, conspiracy mongering, stereotyping are all back in style and that's too bad.
Imagine politics minus paranoia. It's easy if you try. How about honest policy discussions? How about giving the other side credit wherever credit is due? How about not demonizing them, or always ascribing to them the lowest motivations when other options are available? It goes without saying that this plea is meant for everyone. My side is hardly blameless. I've been an avid listener to political talk radio for decades. I can hardly listen anymore because I can't stand the unfair accusations and stereotyping that are so commonplace lately. My paranoia tolerance is failing me. These days I limit my listening to NPR, and the few radio shows that still respect fair play, and tolerance, John Batchelor for instance, and Armstrong and Getty.
I'm imagining politics with respect and tolerance right now. I pick up the newspaper and strangely ,it's not there.
Fly high GB.
No comments:
Post a Comment