Assassination Chatter and the End of Legitimacy
Legitimacy is the most elemental and elusive of political goods; a gift which only a society can give its leaders, and only the same society can take away.
To deprive a politician of legitimacy is long and serious work. A good deal of the process has always taken place behind the scenes before the evidence comes into view.
Thus, from 1994 onward, a language of generalized insult and contempt was used by Republicans about Bill Clinton in order to deprive him of the claim to be recognized as the legitimate holder of the office of president. Newt Gingrich and the Contract-with-America wing of the party were deliberate in the tactics they deployed. They coolly decided to use the word "sick" to characterize the Clintons and their policies. Instructions regarding which words of contempt to use and when to use them, went out in memorandums and were put into practice on pundit shows and talk radio. This story is told by David Brock, an insider who came to regret the part he played, in his memoir Blinded by the Right.
The delegitimation of Bill Clinton led from the sprawling fruitless Whitewater investigation to the Paula Jones suit to the interrogation of Monica Lewinsky to the impeachment of the president. On the whole this is not an episode Americans look back on with pride. When the Supreme Court in May 1997 decided that Paula Jones's lawsuit against a sitting president could go forward, because there was no reason to suppose it would interfere with his performance of his duties, the judges were oddly unanimous in their indifference to the power of legitimacy.
What Bill Clinton felt at the time is barely possible to imagine; the bitter taste the impeachment left with both Clintons, they have taken great pains to conceal.
We have seen a return this year to the politics of delegitimation by the extreme Republican right. Yet what has been most surprising is the complicity, and then the open participation in that process by the Clinton campaign. Race was always going to be an element in this year's election. But the comparison of the front runner Barack Obama to the marginal candidate Jesse Jackson on the pretext that both had won South Carolina was a shocker when people heard it come out of the mouth of Bill Clinton. Again, the talk, by Hillary Clinton and her operatives after Ohio, of "the commander in chief test" which (it was said) she and John McCain had "passed" but Obama mysteriously could not pass, was a second stroke of the same kind. There was no scientific or political content to the statement. Its significance was gestural. It was an effort to delegitimate Obama, and its truth could only be shown by its success or failure.
Hillary Clinton's recent careless-careful mention of the assassination of Robert Kennedy, in answer to a question about why she would stay in the Democratic race when all the numbers are against her, raised the tactics of delegitimation to a pitch as weird as anything the Clintons can have seen in the years 1997-98.
The most disturbing element of her remark was this: that it chose to treat assassination as just one more political possibility, one of the things that happen in our politics, like hecklers, lobbyists, and forced resignations. The slovenly morale and callousness of such a released fantasy is catching. So when, a few days later, the Fox News contributor Liz Trotta was asked her opinion of Senator Clinton's statement, Trotta said: "some are reading [it] as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama...Obama. Well...both if we could!" Liz Trotta laughed as she said that. Later, she apologized, as Senator Clinton also has apologized.
Race comes easily and inevitably into discussions of Barack Obama, and never far from race is the thought of violence. It is there when you hear mentally feeble persons say, "I am afraid of this one; so afraid! something makes me afraid!" And race comes into the discussion when you hear clever people say, "He can never win the white vote; the white working class just aren't ready for him."
An unmeasurable but well-recorded condition for the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the campaign of delegitimation that preceded that terrible event. Anti-Castro Cubans hated Kennedy because he had disappointed them at the Bay of Pigs, and seemed to be a warm friend cooling. Many Southern white people hated him for his indications of solidarity with the cause of civil rights. There are other actors and reactions that might be added; but all shared the belief that Kennedy was not a legitimate leader, that he didn't deserve to be given the chance to go on governing. The hatred was especially virulent in the South. Death threats were in the air and Kennedy had been warned against taking the trip to Texas.
When a democratic society fails to honor the contract by which we elect our leaders in peace, and let them govern in peace, and show our approval or disapproval by keeping them or turning them out of office--when the incantation "He is not one of us" dips so far below sanity that we pretend the rules and decencies aren't in force any more--it is more than one person who is harmed. This loose way of talking and thinking of violence hardens us against real responsibility if the violent thing should happen. We are administering shocks to ourselves in advance so as not to be surprised by the actuality. But such preparations are in their very nature corrupt, and corrupting. And they are not less so when used against any person of dignity and estimation, on the public stage, than when they are leveled against an elected official.
William James wrote of the hope of democracy after the Civil War:
"The deadliest enemies of nations are not their foreign foes; they always dwell within their borders. And from these internal enemies civilization is always in need of being saved. The nation blest above all nations is she in whom the civic genius of the people does the saving day by day, by acts without external picturesqueness; by speaking, writing, voting reasonably; by smiting corruption swiftly; by good temper between parties; by the people knowing true men when they see them, and preferring them as leaders to rabid partisans or empty quacks. Such nations have no need of wars to save them."
The original meaning of the phrase "We shall overcome" is too often forgotten. The words didn't mean: "We--black and white people--will win equal rights for black people." They meant rather: "We--human beings--will overcome our savage impulse to settle our differences by violence. In both domestic and foreign arenas of dispute, we will overcome our endless reliance on short-violent-cuts to success."
The acceptance of political violence, apparent in the recent casual chatter of assassination, shows a despair of overcoming that is as monstrous in its way as the acts of violent men themselves.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have to agree with you, Neoprimordial. I don't think anyone has addressed this issue as well as Mr. Bromwich. The use of the issue of assassination and Sen. Obama began in January, when a Clinton supporter referred to the fact that so many see Obama as JFK, and then commented that JFK was assassinated and that LBJ passed the civil rights bill. The Clinton camp denounced those statements THEN and began using the sentiment in their own 'right', focusing on RFK instead. The transition is telling, isn't it?
With all due respect to the bloggers I love most--Jane Smiley, Jon Robin Baitz, Gary Hart, and Catherine Crier--this blog by David Bromwich has to be one of the best of I've read, anywhere. Talk about framing an argument! Legitimacy is what it's all about, what it's always been all about. It amazes me how one word can so simply encompass so much so effectively. I've thought about how Hillary Clinton is no longer a legitimate candidate for president, in my opinion, but I didn't think of it the way Mr. Bromwich articulates it. In essence, she deligitimized herself with all that's she's done and continues to do by her continuing campaign. And despite her efforts to deligitimize Obama--in particular, identifying with the opposition party candidate over her own party colleague--she could not prevail.
Despite the distasteful manner in which she presented the issue, we should ask what is it that makes Barack Obama legitimate. Aside from the purely technical aspects of being a legitimate candidate for U.S. president, what can we point to? We point to the same things we do with anyone who would be an effective leader: the ability, first and foremost, to lead: to inspire people to move in the direction that will further their best interests; secondly the capacity to administrate: to effectively delegate authority; thirdly, integrity. These are most important, and Barack Obama alone most strongly exhibits these qualities. Thank you, Mr. Bromwich, for a wonderfully enlightening commentary.
Obama made a big deal of this and were the first to report this to the NY papers.
Lynn Sweet reports that information in Chicago Sun Times a few days ago.
Please stop with opinions and report properly.
I am a white woman watching the coverage of Senator Obama's Reverend friends: Reverend Wright, Reverend Pflagler and their friend Louis Farrakhan.
I am very upset that this abuse is so demeaning to not only Whites, but to Christians and Americans that love our country. President Clinton and Senator Clinton are being stripped of their dignity.
Senator Obama attends the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. I would recommend that your committee have a viewing of this church and watch videos of Reverend Wright, Reverend Pflagler and Reverend Farrakhan.
Unless the DNC sees some type of video, words apparently will not demonstrate the impact that this ordeal is having on Americans, especially the youth.
You tube has many videos that demonstrate the abuse that is going on in this church facility.
According to Fox news, the church supports Louis Farrakhan. Chicago Sun Times has also reported a rally held by Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan to support Senator Obama. Obama and Farrakhan have been on the cover of Trumpet Magazine together.
Please don't ignore this message and investigate these matters.
If Senator Clinton belonged to a church that supported the Ku Klux Klan and continued to attend it, wouldn’t the DNC examine that?
If Senator Clinton's preacher friends of twenty years remarked about black people and criticized "black" Obama and "black" Michelle Obama, wouldn't this be addressed?
I would hope so.
I am upset with these associates of Senator Obama and it is serious.
Forget about it! This won't work - this is his church, not his campaign! Pastor Wright's comments were abhorrent and widely shown, referred to, brought up, etc. etc. - please don't try to reignite them again!
This new pastor isn't even part of the Church - I saw the clip. It's stupid, he's apologized, Obama has said the piece was divisive - what more do you want him to do?
I dare say that the Church and the pastors (probably even the members themselves) have been fully investigated (especially by the Clinton campaign - don't you think they are just looking for this kind of stuff and they certainly are not circumspect about bringing up it).
Give it up and let's get on to important matters for America!
You listen to Fox? They want to assassinate Obama, their commentator said so. Hillary is staying in the race in case Obama gets assassinated, or something...gov. Rendell said some whites would not vote for a half Black man, Richardson said Hillary told him Obama was unelectable because of his race, Bill used race to describe Obama's wind in the South, Ferrarro said Obama is winning only because he is Black, Hillary said she represents the hard working Americans, the White ones. Bill said it's a conspiracy why his wife is loosing, Hillary tried to make Ayers and Farrakhan be Obama's best friends, Bill claims Obama played the race card and on and on. You never mentioned one issue like health care, jobs, rising gas costs... Just propaganda... If you listen you will hear Barack tell his own story...he is winning because Whites are voting for him. 80/20 is white/minority ratio in America... Listen and you will hear why they are for Obama.
This was no slip of the tongue by Hillary this was deliberate and calculating and irresponsible.You do not use the a word in any context in the course of a political campaign. I felt like throwing up when I heard it. For anyone growing up in the 60's the casual reminder of this trauma as if it were another day at the beach is unforgiveable. Hillary meant to say what she said and meant for it to be interpreted the way it has been - anything can happen to the frontrunner even the unthinkable after all it happened to RFK in June and this is still May...disgusting inexcusable and unforgivable.
This is the usual ObaCrap. Hillary says something and they blow it out of all proportion, just so that they can be "outraged" about something. Lets face it: Blacks LOVE to be "outraged". It apparently makes them feel good. Why do you think that they go listen to Orville Wright every week? So that they roll around in "outrage", and forget about all of THEIR OWN faults.
What a bunch of ObaCrap. All Hillary did was mention that RFK was still running in June. Does this mean that Hillary is advocating Obama's assassination? I don't get it. I don't understand "the outrage" here.
And lets call a spade a spade: All of Obama's heroes have been assassinated: MLK, JFK, and RFK.
Dead, dead and dead. He wants to run ads comparing himself to JFK and RFK, and he wants to go rapping like MLK, it might be a good idea to think a little.
But the biggest threat against Obama is that some more skeletons come dancing out of his closet. Probably holding hands with Orville Wright, Adolph Farrakhan, Rezko, et. al. Lots of October surprises, I'd say.
I NEVER GET OUTRAGED BY STUPIDITY, and I'm laughing at you now. The only thing to fear, is fear itself. Orville Wright - yeah you're "flying" on something too.
It is such a privilege to read a piece as well crafted and thoughtful as this. Thank you so much!
I feel the same way.
Me too!
Democrats are guilty of the exact same tactics. Case in point is Election 2000 when they accused George W. Bush of trying to steal the election when it was obvious to anybody with their eyes open that it was the Democrats who were doing all the stealing.
It's Republican Officials in the state of Florida and the Republican appointed justices on the Supreme Court who de-legitimized the Election of 2000, blocking the recount, ironically enough, to protect the legitimacy of the presidency.
(The above constitutes at least an attempt at an argument, as it cites it's premise. All you provide is the ad hominem, "anybody with their eyes open"... that's a rhetorical fallacy... learn to argue honestly with your fellow Americans... it's your civic duty!)
Excuse me, but it was Republican tactics to delay the recount so they would not meet the deadlines. No one will ever truly know who won the election. But don't blame the Dems for that. We got we got unfortunately. Aren't you happy that Bush became our President? You and 25% of the rest of the country and probably a lot less than that in the rest of the world.
And add to that Hillary's comments about "obliterating" Iran and the many other hawklish remarks she has made over the years. Sadly not a woman of peace.
could you please share some of those many other hawkish comments, I have been looking and can't find them.
thanks so much.
Her vote for the use of force in Iraq. Her vote for Kyle/Lieberman. Her vote for the use of cluster bombs, even in civilian areas.
Wow, David! An awesome monograph about political assassination. The only thing I would add is the old adage of "Wanting to pick someone apart because they are perfect".
JFK and to some extent, for awhile, Bill Clinton were objects of envy and jealousy. Some may have veiwed them through the romantic lens of having more than they earned; more than they deserved. Too popular; too competent, too much charisma. Do you know anyone that envies (or ever has envied) George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld...?
I believe envy, whatever the cause, lay at the seat of most violence: "Something you've got that I can't have." To wit: Hillary & Bill Clinton, circa 2008.
Does anyone think that Hillary and Bill might try and start their own party after they destroy the Democratic Party:? Or have her run as an Independent.
THEY destroy the Democratic party?
YOU, Dean, Brazzil, Axelrod and the "liberal" media are destroying the Democratic party.
And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I'm leaving. Independent. Not because of the clintons but because of you, the haters, people like Bromwich and the once again foolishness of a group of Dem's devouring their own, doing what ever they have to in the service of their candidate.
The Clinton's are destroying the party? The Clinton's are ruthless?
Hillary is polarizing.
Take a look in the mirre sweetie and see the face or the democratic party that would rather treat anyone who doesn't tow the party line as enemies.
You did it in the blogs with malice and hatemongering and the media was gleefully delighted to help you out.
Nice Work
I hope to hell they do and I never thought I'd say that.
BUT
having started off as a happy camper who supported Obama but would have happily voted for Clinton too, I was so proud of both candidates and the Democratic party. After paying close attention and seeing seen the way Obama and Axelrod play politics and create narratives (using neocon talking points!) against Hillary and the ugly undermining and delegitimizing of the Clinton presidency by Obama I could not continue my support. Disassociating myself from the ugliness of Obamaites was icing on the cake.
Someone who so amorally plays the games Obama does while proclaiming so loudly he is a unifyer shouldn't be President. again.
Oh dear - I had given you credit for being better than that.
It seems you are just another childish person trying to force anonymous strangers on a blog ot pander to her - OR ELSE! And are then so blind to your own behavior that you blame the other person when they tell you where to stick that ultimatum.
You are free to vote however you like. But spare us the theatrics and do NOT threaten others with your vote. If you want to waste it voting against your own interest, rights and the constitution, and punish the entire country because you cannot see reality, have at it.
I think you all should leave and make oyur own party "The Misandrist Juvenile Party of America" (motto: We are ALL Just VICTIMS)
Child..and you really wonder why you've been greeted with "so much bile"? Did you ever ask yourself whether some might take your own words as "ugly"? What was it, anyway, that caused you to "see Obama and Axelrod play politics and create narratives" using "neocon talking points"...??? I think that they've been very restrained. Did you see it for yourself or is it what Hillary's people SAID they said? There's certainly been a lot of that! I would really like to know, because..you have to understand..it seems just the opposite to the Obama side..that the vitriol is coming from the Clinton side, and that Obama's supporters are being brutally attacked? I have mentioned, briefly and at length, in various posts here, why I am now opposed to Hillary Clinton..in summation, it's many of her policies, politics, benefactors and the way she's run her campaign. I'd have to devote an entire post to the specifics, but could if you wanted..and if HP would not toss it off for irrelevancy. It was painful to have to turn away from her, for I'd like to think the best of others..always. What about you?
Only staunch Hillary supporters can actually say, with a straight face, that Obama is responsible for what has devolved into a nasty and divisive campaign. From "Bittergate" to Rev. Wright to the Underground Weatherman, Hillary's campaign has thrown everything they could at Obama (never mentioning her own connection to the latter two) and, when that didn't work, they pulled the race card. When your own supporters are reprimanding you, you've probably said something bad. Time after time, she's experienced tongue slippage yet how often did you see a commercial about it or hear Obama repeating it over and over and over... ad nauseum. Sure his surrogates are doing it for him, but I don't blame him for fighting back after having the "kitchen sink" thrown at him after dominating Super Tuesday. Only a Clinton supporter would blame this all on Obama. It's obvious because everyone else seems to be blaming Clinton.
The article was written by a more "objective" journalist from across the pond:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3499112.ece
Ohmercy:
I was looking for a reason to quit backing Obama's campaign and your words caught my eye. Help me out here: I am desperate to locate "the ugly undermining and delegitmizing of the Clinton presidency by Obama." Would appreciate your being specific on this, so I can pass it on to friends, who want to denounce Obama too!
"After paying close attention and seeing seen the way Obama and Axelrod play politics and create narratives (using neocon talking points!) against Hillary and the ugly undermining and delegitimizing of the Clinton presidency by Obama I could not continue my support."
Yes I have thought the same thing..........probably run as an independent, since breaking the rules did not work.
Yes I hear it will be called the DixieCrat party.
The inexorable truth concentrated within the piece driving the pounding narrative home, deepens respect and appreciation for the professionals of journalism who with talent and integrity speak to the public. I thank you and I salute you sir for your astounding treatment.
Concisely -- you said it all, and there is no more to say!
A thoughtful and well-written essay. Thank you for the injection of reason and appreciation of civilized conduct.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
So why is it strange that we allow our politicians to go overboard without doing anything about it? It's because we are just waking up. We are just seeing what the system has become and how bad it really is. Clinton woke up an entire country to the inside workings of our government and just how intricate and crude it really is.
This woman has completely turned changed her demeanor 360 degress in the worse way. This was her race to lose. And being a woman, I was one of her supporters also. And now, I can't stand to see her face. How sad to see this transformation of her right before my eyes.
And all it took was a "nice guy" to come on the scene who had no knowledge of how the game was supposed to be played and set himself up to play his "own rendition". He knew he didn't like the game as it has always been played, so he was determined to do it HIS WAY.
I am so proud of this man and it never ceased to amaze me at how whites love to accredit the black votes on the basis of race instead of anything else. They play the black vote too cheap and now they will pay for doing so. They will never get our votes ever again without earning it. We will never go foolishly into that good night on the basis of "past" records for anybody in the future.
This woman has completely turned changed her demeanor 360 degress in the worse way.
Please, think about what you just said.
Seriously.
(not because you mean 180 degrees not 360)
Is it possible that no, she didn't change 180 degrees but she is covered in such a way as to make you believe it, make you hate the site of her face?
Why is it so easy to believe the worst possible scenario when evidence about her life, if you actually do any research, deep research tells you a different story.
Why is it so easy to give legitimacy to the media who have created this narrative (along with the master at shaping public perception, Axelrod) when iin every other story they are called corporate whores, lying scum and more.
What is with this mass hatred?
What is with this need to utterly destroy,?
I find it unbelievable that this is happening.
the hit jobs the media has done on this woman is shameful,
the picking up of the neocon cause by the left is unforgivable.
Ohmercy I want to say I appreciate that you have written in sincere defense of Clinton (as opposed to "defending" her by either spreading her propaganda or bashing Obama and his supporters). I don't see actual supporters very often.
I will say that many of us are judging on the words out of her mouth, and actions which can be seen clearly and have no room for misinterpretation. It is not a "hit job" to judge on facts, no matter how much you truly beleive it is all a "misunderstanding".
Fact: she told the bosnia story multiple times Fact: it wasn't true.
Fact: she agreed FL and MI wouldn't count. Fact: she changed her mind.
Fact: she states the Obama blocked votes Fact: That is a lie
Etc etc etc.
Obama, by virtue of rules agreed to -and accepted- by ALL parties in advance, has come out the winner.
The loser, rather than accept defeat gracefully and unite the party, is choosing instead to untie the party, stoke hatred, tell lies, spin reality, change the rules, go back on her word and cheat to win.
I actually say that -without hatred- because these are conclusions drawn from words out of HER OWN MOUTH. It become clear that is it -she- using neo-con tactics, not Obama.
Please, I sincerely ask you to review the evidence objectively.
Hey! YOU snap out of it. The handmaidens in Hillary's temple don't understand that she has earned the disdain of many contemporaries..those of us who've put it on the line all our lives..clubbed, maced and otherwise abused for our efforts, literally and figuratively. Most were in her corner all these years..up until we started to discover some unhappy truths. Whoever she once was..and I'll give her the benefit of the doubt..she isn't, now. Her current politics, policies, benefactors and votes..her own behavior in this campaign..have all provided the Big Turnoff to many old gals like myself. We didn't "choose" to be feminists..we live it every day..and know that there are many women out there now (and coming up), who'd do us proud as first female president!
This assassination crack, supposedly some "accident" borne of fatigue, is almost identical to a statement she made to Time, March 6. Then, listen to/read McAuliffe's exchange with Russert on MTP, May 11.."Nothing's impossible"..even "an act of God or something catastrophic", evidently. Hillary could have said, either time, "RFK campaigned in June"..but instead she chose to use a word considered incredibly inappropriate by most! It's now, apparently, a talking point..a theme, even! Her latest comment, made within a week of Huckabee's grotesque remark to the NRA, (about a backstage noise being Obama diving under a chair because someone aimed a gun at him), makes her choice of words even more distasteful.
hey!
HEY!
Snap out of it!
I just finished reading your comment!
PLEASE!
You are really swimming in Axelrod narrative here babe.
You are describing things in ways that are very, very far from reality.
http://tinyurl.com/33hlfo
This isn't a hit job. Just descriptive of how people get to where they are in politics from a credible, respected source.
Discusses the money it takes, and what it takes to get the money with lots of commentary from Obama.
The way people seem to think that Obama sprang out of thin air without ever playing politics dirty is a little scary.
why?
Because of the massive disillusion that might happen when you get that all politicians have to give up something to get where they are.
Stop with the naivitae. (sp)
Violence begets violence. If you have a violent government, they will exert their violence on their people. We, the people, have become so placid and passive that we let the government tell how to eat, breathe, walk, talk, and think. We are systematically being brainwashed into what the governments wants us to be and we don't even know it.
We are on the verge of losing our individual characteristics and moral compass. We are living for the one instead of the many. How do you bring the masses together when everyday, you are pushing them apart by causing mayhem and chaos. The madness of it all is enough to make us crazy.
We can't get up in the morning without turning on the TV or radio to hear the weather, news, or whatever. All the time, we are being desensitized to our surroundings, the smells of nature, the beauty of our environment (if there's any beauty left), and the personal intermingling of others.
Soon, we will be a bunch of robotons, guided by ID cards that will basically eke out our daily supplies for living, lead us to where we are supposed to go, monitor us to make sure we are doing and saying what we're supposed to do or say, and limit our breeding ability to keep the masses under control.
Fascism is just a step away if we don't wake up and act like human beings again.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
