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
One thing that seems to be overlooked in this country is that TERRORISM TAKES MANY FORMS! All terrorists are not in other countries. America needs to wake up to this reality.
This is true..is anyone else waiting, kinda holding your breat, to see if Clinton really will go to the convention with the political equivalent of a bomb strapped to her nomination
Thank you for your words of wisdom.
Excellent commentary! You have raised the bar for discussion on these most unfortunate comments from Senator Clinton and at the same time you have educated us all.
Thank you.
What former President and Senator Clinton have been doing is engaging in the politics of personal destruction, or delegitimization in this case, as an extreme political sport. That such politics were so egregiously and wrongly employed against the Clintons - and that Senator Obama and his wife Michelle today reflect the best the Clintons had to offer in 1992, and then some, without the slick baggage, the corporate ties to Wal-Mart, and Bill Clinton's storied history of not keeping it in his pants - simply piles on the irony.
Very excellent piece. Dick Morris made an interesting remark when he said:
"Everybody who has thought seriously about the Obama candidacy, including me and probably including the Senator himself, have reflected on the horrible possibility that he would be assassinated. One cannot think about Obama, the Kennedy-esque candidate without worrying about his safety. But we all observe the discipline of not raising the issue in public. We all worry that to do so would be to encourage some maniac to take a shot. Now Hillary has violated this unstated but heretofore universal taboo and brought up the possibility. That is not to say that she is hoping for a murder. But it is to say that the possibility is uppermost in her mind and a significant part of her rationale for staying in the race. And, by raising it, she has made it more possible."
she certainly has unleashed a lion of a virus
I think we all know the Rush Limbaughs of the World will take this to epidemic proportions.
"...by acts without external picturesqu
Yeah, uh, when does that stuff kick in?
I wasn’t concerned with Clinton’s comments (her campaign); I was disturbed by her apology. Obama, stands and accepts victory or acknowledges Clinton’s win. Her “concession” speeches usually ignore Obama.
Strife, resignations, “finding her voice” defines her campaign. Obama’s hits bumps and moves forward. Some of her ads are sick. “Is Obama Muslim?” She responded he wasn’t and then qualified her answer. Her campaign.
However, I cannot believe the Clintons want some horrible end. I believe she was referencing a point in time and not an event. Her reference to Kennedy was a most unfortunate moment in this debate.
I am disturbed because, like Bush/McCain, she won’t say “I made a mistake.” She won’t do it on Iraq. She won’t do it when she didn’t “misspeak,” but did what we all do and “mis-remembered” sniper fire. And she won’t do it here.
Her apology should have been “To Senator Obama and his family I sincerely apologize. I would never wish on him any fate that would deprive our nation, or his family of his presence and great promise.” There’s an apology I could have said “YES, a person of character.
Iraq is a consequence of “won’t.” Obama says he’s not a perfect man. How refreshing a person of great character and courage who says “I make mistakes. Forgive me.” I’ll do one better than that Barack--I'll continue to support you however I’m able.
David said it best:
"...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
FOX NEWS MUST BE FINED BY THE FCC FOR THE INDECENT COMMENTS OF LIZ TROTTA.
PioneerKing,
Fox News will never do anything decent,so don't whole your breath.
The Clintons have not only lost my respect but my support.
What the Repulicans did to them during their administra
they were pulling for her to win so they could finish the job,and I have no sympathy
left.
Fox News and other right-wing nut media sources have never and will never be held accountable for their promotion of hatred and violence. It's why they gleefully continue. They fear no retribution.
the story made the NY times blog
http://the
start commenting and MAKE SOME NOISE!!!
"Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy have gotten a lot of attention. A far more offensive assassination reference on Fox News has largely gone under the radar, since it happened over a slow Memorial Day weekend."
This is in response to the NYTImes blog.
"A far more offensive assassination reference"? Is there such a thing as less offensive assassination reference? I'm sorry, but NO presidential candidate should bring up assassination under no circumstance, period.
Isn't the term "delegitimize?"
Excellent article!! This is the kind of indebt thinking that we really need to take a cold hard look. As I have stated Bill and Hilary knew exactly what they stated...a
The fast that the main stream media are making light of it (except Keith Obermann) reminds me how long we still need to go in this country.
I haven't seen anyone point out the obvious: if Hillary Clinton hadn't made those absurd assassination remarks, there would indeed have been some chance that Obama supporters would have rallied around her if this awful event occurred. After what she said, there is about as much chance of that happening as, well, Bhutto supporters developing a sudden admiration for Musharraf.
I can only conclude that people who casually throw around the assassination idea believe it couldn't happen and haven't considered just what a REAL firestorm looks like. In other words, they really are idiots.
Beautifully succinct.
Whether or not Hillary "meant" the obvious implication of her remarks, she is utterly insensate to the brutishness, the coarseness, the amorality inherent in her words and affect. Ditto Liz Trotta. Moral human beings in contrast stand aghast, not only at the ghoulish words, but at the accompanying giggles and grins. (It reminds me of nothing so much as the blatherskite folly that characterized so much of the discussion in the run-up the war.)
So, whether or not she meant those words, Hillary has proven herself again, and conclusively, a moral cipher, unfit for the office she seeks.
RFK JUNIOR SAID HILLARY'S REMARKS NO-BIG-DEAL.
BUT THE MEDIA AND OBAMA--SUPPORTERS CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF HILLARY BASHING.
THE DEMOCRATS EAT THEIR OWN KIND LIKE WILD BEASTS----
THERE IS NO LOYALTY WITH IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AT ALL.
That the super delegates have been coerced to support Obama has alienated Hillary Clinton voters to a devastating (won't vote for Dem ticket) extent.
We are angry out here...mos
Sorry I don't need an excuse to criticize Hillary Clinton. She's made me sad in a way I cannnot even begin to mention. She's the first legitimate woman candidate, and she's broken my heart with her actions.
I know the math. There is no way for her to win. What's the path to her winning? She let us know on Friday.
Can't you see that all this bitterness you feel has been deliberately engendered by the Rovian strategists in the Clinton campaign? And can't you see how destructive that strategy has been for our country, as practiced by loyal Bushies? I support Obama, but I never swore an oath that I wouldn't vote for Clinton. In her brand of politics, sadly, an open mind is anathema; only blind loyalty will do. Mercifully, this diseased politics has finally failed.
Wow. With all due respect, I think you are just a little over the top.Take a deap breath!
I disagree. Who "coerced" the superdelegates? This is just a wingnut talking point.
Clinton honestly earned her reviews by what she said and what she did - it's that simple. To what should Democrats be "loyal?" To the prospect of more free trade agreements, more jobs shipped overseas, more disruption of the Mexican countryside assuring more undocumented immigrants and an endless war in the mideast, all just so Hillary can prove she has cojones?
Go to Obama's website - there are plenty of policy declarations. As a matter of policy, he will negotiate with both Iran and Cuba, and that's a refreshing change.
I have heard Hillary say she wants to go back to the prosperity of the 1990's. Well, the prosperity of the 1990's was a fraudulent bubble, exploited at the cost of our long-term, economic well-being. We didn't know it at the time, but we do now.
When confronted, she repeatedly lied about her position on these "free trade" agreements at the time they were originally under discussion. This reveals her to be a crass opportunist.
The administration in power at present has illustrated how profoundly disinterested crass opportunists are in the general welfare, and that is why Hillary is losing.
If you'd taken the time to do some research, you'd see that Obama has put out detailed positions on many policy issues.
AMEN!!!!!!
Hillary isn't worried about assassins, because she's on the same side as them. She's a poor example for women trying to break through the glass ceiling. I do not want her to represent me!
I disagree, I think the article reflects a naive mindset about modern politics.
We might not like the current state of US politics, but what is, is. I don't think anyone posting here can truly be inside anyone else's mind Clinton, McCain, Obama to pinpoint a motive for any political strategy or statement;. there are historical realities: RFK was assassinated as was MLK, JFK; and opposing parties have slandered tand otherwise targeted representative individuals of the opposing forces. Even WEbster's dictionary acknolwedg
Whichever candidate wins the presidency, he/she must be able to navigate the stormy waters of unsavory methods and tactics both nationally and internationally to keep the ship afloat. I'd like to see articles that do not feed the distractions rather provocative essays that bring readers unbiased information that highlights the skills and knowledge of each candidate and his/her ability to effectively lead in these times.
We have never heard of the "why" when people are assassinated.
We have never heard of the "why" when terrorists bomb our infrastructure.
We have never heard of the "why" when people riot in our streets.
We have never heard of the "why" do they hate Americans.
We have never heard of the "why" they continue to kill our soldiers in Iraq.
We have never heard of the "why" Government lie and cover-up their crimes.
That is because we have a media that has lost its way for the almighty dollar and ratings. The one modicum of decency and fairness has disappeared overnight.
Now we hear "best political team" and "fair and balance". Poppycock. When i read a post like this that peels back the scab in this country and revealed the "immaturity" of this nation and the political process, i am encouraged that ordinary people armed with the truth will prevail over these corporate bastards.
This country is still searching for the "why", until then we will be........
Great post. I agree 100% with your analysis. Let's see this on the front page of our "great rags".
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
