Patriarchal Politics and the Clintons

 

Patriarchal Politics and the Clintons

Peter Schultz

 

                  Hillary Clinton’s assertion that there was “a vast right-wing conspiracy” that wanted to undermine her husband’s presidency and humiliate him served well to preserve the patriarchal politics that underlay the American political order. That charge shifted attention away from the patriarchy and its sexual politics. Given the potential explosiveness of that issue, it had to be defused, and it was with the aid of Starr’s “pornography.”

 

                  That Starr’s report, given its graphic details of Clinton’s and Lewinsky’s sexual activities, had crossed a line as evidenced by the fact that “enough [people] felt offended by the prosecutors’ conduct … to change the dynamics of the struggle. There was something prurient about what Starr and the Congress were doing that [offended] more people than Clinton’s conduct had.” [527, A Woman in Charge] Starr’s prurience was offensive because it threatened to expose the obscene character of sexual politics in our patriarchy. It offended because it threatened to expose the lie in thinking of Bill Clinton’s sexual excesses as mere “dalliances,” and not as indications or illustrations of the obscenity buried deeply in our patriarchy.

 

                  Similarly, Hillary’s status, her public stature rose as she played the role required by the patriarchy, viz., of “standing by her man” and “handling herself … with dignity and fortitude.” [528] “She kept to her own schedule of events, giving speeches, traveling in the United States and abroad.” Which broadcast the message, comforting to many, that the president’s actions were sexual dalliances, mere picadilloes, and are not indicative of a deeply rooted patriarchal sexual psychosis. Or as James Carville put it: “You can’t elevate a blow job to anything more than a blow job.” [524] At least, you shouldn’t elevate blow jobs to anything more than blow jobs if you wish to preserve the patriarchy. And in terms of preserving our patriarchy, it might even seem that insofar as there was a vast right-wing conspiracy in the United States to do so, that the Clintons were, willy nilly, involved in it.

The Pathological Is Political

 

The Pathological Is Political

Peter Schultz

 

                  The hypothesis: the pathological has roots in the political.

 

                  Consider the Clintons, Bill and Hillary. Hillary’s failures were due to her ambition. The ambitious seek, above all, success, but success requires playing by the established rules. The established rules in the United States are patriarchal. So, to achieve success, Hillary had to play by those rules, which ultimately left her angry and bitter.

 

                  One senior White House official, who worked with Hillary asked, “whether Hillary had ever been a genuinely happy or even content person.” He said that “perhaps … it was most essential” … to realize that “she must have been an unhappy person for most of her adult life. And a very angry one at that … often in a state of agitated discontent … sometimes icy cold and embittered, though … capable of fun and laughter and warm friendship (though rarely of irony).” [pp. 310-11, A Woman in Charge, Carl Bernstein]

 

                  So, to achieve the success she craved, Hillary had to play by established rules, which left her angry and bitter. And the “higher” she rose in the established order, the tighter she was bound by those rules. Because that what happens – to everyone. Bill Clinton described the presidency as “a high class ‘penitentiary.’” [279] More success invariably means less freedom and less privacy. And if you are incapable of irony – of laughing at what are conventionally thought to be the most serious matters – you are bound to become angry, bitter, and discontent.

 

                  One possible response to this situation is to seek solace or comfort in ways that are conventionally disapproved of, for example, in sexual or drug-induced excesses. But insofar as you are a member of the elite, these choices, if revealed, will ruin you, lead to your downfall because they threaten the established order, revealing its hollowness. This helps explain why elites condemned Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades more forcefully than did ordinary Americans. The latter are not as deeply invested in the established order as its elites are. Hence, it should not have been surprising that “editors and reporters” of the nation’s three leading newspapers, the NY Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, treated “Hillary and Bill [as if they] were neck deep in corruption.” [348-9] And, of course, protecting the established, patriarchal order required that Clinton’s sexual pathology be exposed, because his right to privacy was less important than the established order. He might try to claim that his pathologies were only his and Hillary’s business, but given their political implications, that claim would be and was easily denied.

 

                  Our pathologies have roots in the political. Which gives added meaning to Aristotle’s claim that we humans are “political animals.” Because she lived in a patriarchy, Hillary’s road to political success went through Bill Clinton, went through a marriage that was destined from the outset to be characterized by bitterness, anger, discontent, and disappointment. Moreover, it also meant that Hillary’s decision to seek success politically guaranteed the same kinds of pathology. Our pathologies have roots in the political. Patriarchy is a way of life.

Hitler and the Political

Hitler and the Political

Peter Schultz

 

                  Which best explains Hitler, his “unique instinct for power,” or the incompetence of his enemies? The question matters regarding the character of the political. The former implies that the political is potentially an arena conducive to greatness, both personal and political. The latter implies the political is an arena characterized by incompetence and blindness. The former leads to the affirmation of the political, while the latter leads to irony. What looks like greatness isn’t that at all. Rather, it’s a comedy of errors made to look heroic or noble, a comedy of incompetence made to look like competence, or savagery made to look like righteous war. Danger lies in affirming the political, whereas safety lies in treating it ironically. The danger is characterizing Hitler as “unique,” whereas safety lies in laughing at him.

 

                  Similarly, conspiracy theories about 9/11, for example, affirm the political because they assert the attacks were made possible by carefully laid plans to create “a new Pearl Harbor” so the United States could eventually dominate the world. Ironically, such “thinking” is reassuring. Thus, the attacks were seen as impressive feats, thereby implying that the political arena is characterized by such feats and the equally impressive Global War on Terror, undertaken in response to the attacks. Whereas if the attacks reflected and were made possible by incompetence and blindness, then the responses should be carefully calibrated, i.e., not monumentally grand like eradicating evil. Given the character of the political, the monumentally grand is monumentally delusional or mad.

 

                  Conventionally understood, Hitler had a “unique instinct for power,” by which he fooled and rolled over his enemies to become “the master” of the German Reich. Serving evil ends, he was nonetheless “a genius.” But what if Hitler was merely less incompetent that his enemies? And because he was less incompetent, he succeeded – but only for a little while. “Funny how falling feels like flying – for a little while.” Funny, too, how the road to political glory is actually a dead end.

White Supremacy? Moral Supremacy?

 

White Supremacy? Moral Supremacy?

Peter Schultz

 

                  Commonly and correctly, Donald Trump is seen as a white supremacist. But he should also be seen as a moral supremacist. That is, as someone who sees that America and Americans – as he defines them – are morally superior to other nations and other humans. Democrats often fail to take sufficient notice of this.

 

                  But even if they did, they couldn’t take Trump on because they too are moral supremacists. And because a critique of moral supremacy requires a critique of America’s traditional values, like empire, capitalism, and “Waspishness,” as well as a critique of morality generally, the Democrats are unable to oppose Trump at his core. And so no Democratic critique of Trump’s signature mantra, “Make America Great Again,” has been heard.

 

                  Put differently, Democrats and Republicans share the view of America as victim and as exceptional, of America as being victimized because it is morally superior. This is the crux of Bush’s answer to the question, “Why do they hate us?” Because we Americans are morally superior.

 

                  So long as our elites share these convictions, just so long will the empire be secure, and just as long will the righteous savagery continue because colonization disguised as pacification is murderous work. So, whoever is president, “his or her job will be to preserve the myth of America as altruistic liberator …. [while] the terrible truth is that a Cult of Death rules America … hell-bent on world domination.” [Valentine, The CIA as Organized Crime, 378]