Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Clinton

Andrew Sullivan has never been one of the anglophone world's brighter bulbs. He's never been one of its brighter gas lamps. He's never been one of its brighter tallow candles. This has made him acceptable and that has made him successful. He's easily outraged and easily flattered. Whatever. My daddy done tole me never to begrudge a man for making more money than you in the same racket. At least not publicly.

Sullivan, as you're probably aware, has got a serious problem with Hillary Clinton. Fuck it, dudes, so do I. But Sullivan's problem seems largely confined to his conviction that Bill was "a perjurer and an abuser of women; she was deeply complicit in all of it, and ultimately used it for her own political advantage." You read it there first, friends. Perjury and abuse as political advantage. True, hardly a day goes by when Hillary fails to remind cheering crowds of the many ladies ravished by her husband, but . . .

Parenthetically, Sullivan says in that same article, "Watching the Clintons pivot off homophobia--while pretending to be civil rights pioneers--really sickened me (although not as much as the gay establishment symps who rolled over and begged for more. They're still at it, of course)." This from a man who, you'll pardon the expression, got behind Bush.

The flaw in Sullivan's argument is evident in this post rightly excoriating Clinton's position on torture, which is that she has no position on torture. Sullivan:

Before she'll promise anything, she wants the power.
I don't quibble with this statement of fact, but look at the implication. Sullivan couches his unique persistence in critizing Clinton in opposition to power hunger. But who runs for the Presidency without it? Mike Gravel, perhaps.

Now I am willing to sound a little bit like It's-Not-Pronounced-Ann Rand, here. The myth of altruistic intent is irrepressible but false. The President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world. The Office of the Presidency is the single most powerful human institution in the entire history of mankind. Fuck the "Iraqi Quagmire" and the limits of American power. No king, no emperorr, no potentate, no general, no premier, no commissar, no pope, and no messiah during his lifetime has ever wielded more power over more people over a wider geography than the President of the United States. To pursue that office is to pursue that power. That is true of Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and the rest of that passel of madmen and lunatics. Why slice it, dice it, or mince it? Of course she fucking wants the power, Andy.

It's tortorous to me to hear this or that candidate singled out as uniquely venal or corrupt in this regard. With the exception of folks like Paul and Gravel, who are simply using momentary laxness in the electoral system to gain a platform for the airing of quixotic views (and more power to them, by the way), the campaign for the presidency is a campaign to rule the world as nearly as any one person ever has. The aspiration to rule over other human beings is at the heart of every potential president. To believe that Hillary is unique in this regard is pure fatuity. If she evinces more hunger, that only means she's more likely to win the race.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Likewise, I'm always amazed at how badly people want to believe that a "true" Christian occupies the White House. I always try to say that actually living like the man himself (assuming he existed) would entail renouncing your wordly possessions and walking around with a sandwich board, not mouthing some platitudes right before making daily decisions that will inevitably have a negative effect on millions of people wordlwide, something I find hard to square with the common image of Christian do-goodery.

Is this just more of the narcissistic, naive idea that any one of us could grow up to be president, and therefore we want to see someone just like us in there?

la Rana said...

Despite the whole decidedly-not-anti-war thing, my main objection to Hillary is simply that we tried the whole dynasty thing. Didn't pan out so well.

I remember when Bush was first elected, some acquaintances consoled themselves with the idea that at least Bush would appoint people who knew what they were doing. Hoo-baby did that implicit support for Cheney and Rumsfeld turn around and eat itself.

At this point I think the best we can realistically hope for are novices who might need a few years to figure out how to run the ship. Go Barack!

scott said...

Good post. Picking up from it, though, he really does hate her on a purely personal and irrational level. I read his stuff sometimes, and his material practically foams with anger and disgust when he talks about her. HRC as a tired, say-anything political hack is an argument I get and sometimes agree with, but HRC as the center of evil in our political life? Not so much. It's at those moments that I remember Andy's less creditable moments enabling the wingnut right during the 90's in their periodic fits of psychotic rage against the Clintons. Although he now wants to distance himself from those guys, the frothy, panting hate on display re Hillary really does point to some continuing similarities in their obsessions. Calm the fuck down, man.

Crusader AXE said...

Hillary has good instincts, filtered through the prism of Dick Morris and practical politics. In other words, she's a whore. Not unlike all the other whores and madmen seeking the office. I actually think Barack Obama and Candidate for Life BennyG are more similar than different...they both have one issue campaigns. Hillary has lots of issues in her campaign. Just filtered through the self-imposed limitations of practical politics...hence, whore, hack or madperson. Rudy is a madman whore, and Barack is clearly delusional.

If Mike Gravel or Ron Paul could get the media coverage and the money that these three leaders in the poltical process can attract, we'd be thinking about them as opposed to Obama and Hillary. Money, money, money...

Drew Sullivan had the whole Edmund Burke thing staked out long before David Brooks got around to it. Problem is that Edmund Burke is dead...it's like trying to be Jim Morrison. You can buy the leather pants, but you'll still come off like a bloated twit floating in a bathtube of slime.

Interesting how many of the rightwing nuts of the 90s turned out to be gay. Sullivan never pretended to be anything else, which is an improvement over the Rock Hudson/Richard Chamberlain types who are slowing coming to the surface as their closet sinks.

Anonymous said...

Crusader Axe,¨

About that, see Johann Hari's old piece on the forgotten queer roots of fascism. Granted, of course, that Sen. Wide Stance is no Ernst Röhm (less smart) but there you have it.

Dunc said...

The President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world.

I dunnno, man... Rupert Murdoch's gotta be in the running there.

AlanSmithee said...

Back in the halcyon days of '04, pwoggie bloggies were trying to float the idea that Ralph Nader was some kind of power-mad ego driven narcissist for daring to run for president. Good to see Sullivan has a fine grasp of already discredited political talking points. What's he going to use next? Tippecanoe and Tyler Too?

The Promiscuous Reader said...

anonymous, "the forgotten queer roots of fascism." Not quite forgotten, since the Pink Swastika crowd have been beating that dead horse for years. My usual response to this line is to point out that while, yes, there were fascist queers (and still are), they were vastly outnumbered by fascist straights. What's really "forgotten," then, are the heterosexual roots of fascism. But that doesn't quite have the same tabloid thrill to it, does it?

Crusader AXE said...

"Hitler has only one blue ball/Goering has two but they are small/Goebbels, charming Goebbels has no balls at all..." to the tune of Hearts of Oak.

Anyway, warpedness of a wide variety of sorts ran through the Reich like a fast flowing river of shit. Sexual difference is exaggerated as a sign of deviance. Goebbels had children, and he collaborated with his wife to kill them. Himmler really was looking for silly things like the Spear of Longinus and the Ark of the Covenant. Heydrich was as hetero as they come, and he was creepy deviant.

Just a thought, but the deviance thing is really a sign of deviance from self. Assuming as I do that sexual orientation is not a choice, people who hide their difference behind a facade of anti-difference are twisted from the beginning.

JYD said...

i dunno about gravel either. yeah, he's saying stuff that no one else is saying, but it appears to me that his saying it is just a tactic. just like hillary's tactics have been to fence-sit and try to sound less like tires screeching to a halt.

gravel's whole, we-should-encourage-our-troops-to-fuck-each-other-in-the-ass, "like the greeks did!" thing was a little off the mark, in my opinion. not that i care what goes on in another's foxhole, mind you...but it's not exactly the sort of thing a thoughtful, deliberate person would say into a microphone.

IOZ said...

It's exactly the sort of thing a thoughtful, deliberate person would say into a microphone.