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
An excellent essay. A reputation takes a lifetime to earn, and only a moment to ruin. Sen Clinton has found that out, and things will never be the same.
Those of us who remember the violence of 1968 wish not to use it as a template, but rather a warning, a warning that we are precious few steps away from tyranny.
Careless speech may be legal, but it is not wise. Sen Clinton was "in the White House" for eight years. It may be that it was there that she acquired a sense of carelessness. Her sloppiness calls into question everything she has ever done.
The transcript, INCLUDING THE LAUNDRY LIST OF YEARS (1980, 1984, 1988, 1992) that Hillary was referencing to make her point for staying in the race. Also notice that the interviewer KEEPS ASKING her why she's staying in the race, until she eventually comes up with the additional RFK reference. It was simply one more example she was citing of previous races.
Seriously, people have a choice here, let this one go, accept you jumped to conclusions and learn from it so you can possibly avoid the same mistake again in the future, or keep harping on this fabricated conflict so that "your candidate" benefits. Don't be like right-wingers.
CLINTON: ......I have, perhaps, a long enough memory that many people who finished a rather distant second behind nominees went all the way to the convention. I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries were determined to carry their case to the convention. I'm ahead in the popular vote. ....
...
EB: You don't buy the party unity argument?
CLINTON: I don't because, again, I've been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it and there's lot of speculation about why it is, but . . .
http://www
So she was badgered into saying something she otherwise wouldn't? Sorry, but that won't wash, since she's been making this argument repeatedly for weeks.
First of all your transcription of the interview is incorrect.
A) I support Obama (over Hillary)
B) I copied the transcript from the official site. that underlined section up there is a "hyperlink". feel free to click it to see the original document.
C) I didn't call anyone a right winger. I said don't be like them. Implicit in that statement is the assumption that the audience is not a right winger.
Gee whiz, Whitey, you're not very good at this.
Stop being an apologist for Hillary, will you? Clinton has used this so-called 'timeline' which references the assassination of RFK almost VERBATIM on at least 3 prior public occasions.
The assassination comments aside, this is the longest primary season in the nation's history. It started last fall -- when the first debates began. The first caucus was on Jan 3. in 1992 I believe Iowa was feb 7. in 1968 NH was on march 10th.
The question is why did she bring up the RFK Assassination in 1968 at all? She's brought up this assassination reference before, in a Time magazine article.
At some point Hillary needs to be accountable for her own words. Bringing it up once can be dismissed as a gaffe. But doing so repeatedly, especially something as sensitive as this is not merely a gaffe. It's her throwing out yet another reason to stay in a race that is all but over.
Hillary should take heed of 1968, 1980, 1984, 1988. In each of those years democrats lost the White House. Hillary is behind in every objective metric. THe only metrics where she leads is in her own. She leads in the popular vote only when count Florida and Michigan "as is" ( meaning Obama gets 0 votes in MIchigan) She also excludes any popular vote from Iowa, Nevada and Washington since those were caucus states. Shes cherry picking what to count and what not to count in order to give her a metric in which she leads.
Seriously. You people are hopeless. You absolutely refuse to learn from your mistakes.
For the same reason that the context is important here, the context is important in the Time magazine article, and will be important the next time some quote appears worse than it really is, and the next time, and the next time.
--
Clinton made a similar reference to RFK in a March interview with Time .. saying she could not envision a scenario in which party leaders would step in and call for the race to end.
"I think people have short memories," she said then. "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual."
--
if anything, she's comparing HERSELF to RFK (RFK was NOT winning). you people try my patience. her point: June races aren't unusual (a disingenuous point because of the length of the campaign this year OBVIOUSLY). Her example: the most memorable case that even the half-wit American populace can remember.
Had she referred to Gary Hart, or Ted Kennedy, or any other Democratic primary race that has long been forgotten by most, it wouldn't have helped her case.
Anyone who jumped on this (e.g. Olbermann) and doesn't apologize loses credibility. I hope Bromwich changes his tune or he will certainly slip in my eyes.
Senator Clinton wasn't badgered specifically into referencing RFK, and it's not the first time she's referenced RFK and assassination over the course of her current presidential campaign. She has also been quick, in her quest to maintain her candidacy, to cite Karl Rove's recent analysis, and to repeatedly point out that if the Democrats ran their primaries by the GOP's rules, she'd be the nominee (my sarcastic take on this: winner-take-all large state primaries. VERY democratic).
What Senator Clinton could have done in place of RFK is reference the extremely tight GOP nomination contest of 1976, when Ronald Reagan took Gerald Ford to the convention and almost got it. Of course, that would have meant Senator Clinton offering up a comparison of herself to Reagan, bad form after criticizing Senator Obama for referencing Reagan's 1980 election.
Bringing up the specter of assassination, especially in relation to a mixed-race candidate, especially in light of the tragic history of the fate of truly transcendent African-American leaders in the recent past, is well-past tasteless. And as Keith Olbermann and others have pointed out, it's not as if she couldn't simply suspend her campaign and stand ready to step in should something happen, like a fresh scandal. In short, there is no justification for bringing up RFK or the "A" word, period.
""some are reading [it] as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama...Ob
An apology is no apology IF the apology contains the word "IF"
While Clinton wasn't whispering "die" in Obama's ear clearly she is ready to go on with the nomination if he does.
David Bromwich,
I am so impressed with your thinking and your writing. You raise the level of intelligence in the discourse on these topics. Thank you for that!
I look forward to reading your future posts.
Ditto that......
person in our country who could do that. If he were to make a brief statement rebuking Hillary
Clinton for her statement of this Friday past, it would effectively pull the plug on these tactics and
the primaries. It would also successfully remove the pressure from party insiders having to act.
While I deeply regret the news of Teddy's illness and as a "boomer" fully appreciate all that the
Kennedy family has endured, I nonethess am completely unable to fathom another way out of
this mess. The way I see it, only Ted can effectively shut the Clintons down before they do all
the harm so clearly delineated in this excellent article.
Teddy made a statement today about Hillary...
Great post, but one simple correction:
Hillary actually has not apologized.
She half-apologized to the Kennedys for the remark.
But the Kennedys were not the target of her attack.
She still needs to apologize to Obama, and to the American people.
Sen. Clinton WON'T apologize. She is incapable of being incorrect. Sans... (a) Bosnia sniper fire, with her DAUGHTER bent over and listening next to her to the young girl reading a poem,
(b) Not knowing if Sen. Obama is a muslim or not (c), oohh what the heck, I could go on for days, but it doesn't matter because the MOST important thing is that after all SHE'S WHITE!!!! And white always makes right, doesn't it?
A great post. What is casually accepted in this country, is the out-right calls for violence by the extreme right against anyone that disagrees with them. Ann Coulter writes books that say talk to liberals with a baseball bat. Rush Limbaugh says he wants actual riots to happen at the democratic convention and instructs his listeners that is the goal here. Senator Jesse Helms warned President Clinton if he came to his state, he better bring a body guard. Mike Huckabee makes a joke about Obama being assassinated. And on and on it goes. We've tolerated this nonsense for far too long. It's time we stop tolerating this garbage, and we need to start demanding the MSM do the same. Everytime a right-winger makes a call to violence, it needs to be condemned.
Did you miss the meaning of the above article?
Or are you too blinded by anti-Bush hatred that you condemn your party stooping so low?
Whaaaat??????
Wtf? Threats of violence and "jokes" about assassination are almost exclusivly owned by GOP surrogates, with the exception of Hillary's awful campaign, which is Republican in its tone. What the hell does Bush-hating have to do with any of this? We hate Bush because he is an incompetent war monger, and should have been impeached years ago. What does this have to do with right wing nutjobs making jokes about assasination and lynching? Did you even read the article?
I think you should hold a mirror up to your comment. YOU seem to have utterly missed the point of both the original article & the comment to which you replied...
OMG, what the hell is wrong with people (all people). This was not a comment suggesting that a hit be put out on Barack, it was a comparison as to candidates staying in the race until June or beyond. I am always amazed by the spin which is placed on every single phrase which comes from Hillary.
Barack is so thin skinned and so self-centered as to thinking that every single phrase is a reference to him or about him. Toughen up Barack!!!!
Believe it or not the world does NOT revolve solely around him.
What an excellent, powerful post! Thank you, David Bromwich, for speaking so clearly about this chaotic political atmosphere. When Huckabee and Hillary dare to speak so casually and openly about the notion of assassination of another human being, it give tacit approval for everyone else to do the same. Hence, the god-awful, self-assured and absolutely hideous musings of Liz Trotta. It serves to help get us all desensitized to the possibility of someone being murdered.
What is happening here is not a series of 'gaffes' by hillary, huckabee, fox fools and a host of other bad players. Thanks for illuminating the intentions behind these deliberate remarks.
Talk of assassination creates a critical mass that de-shocks the masses into accepting what should be impossible as possible. All it takes is one nut case to tune in and pick up the sword laid down by this public conversation. If anything happens to Obama, Clinton will and should be held somewhat responsible for poisoning the public discourse for her narcissistic obsession to become President. She has clearly shown she would be a terrible leader because everything she would do would be about what she thinks makes her look better in the moment or what helps her, not necessarily what helps the nation or the world. She has disqualified herself as a legitimate candidate and I call on all still voting in the remaining primaries to send her that message by voting for Obama.
Absolutely, we are desensitizing everybody, which actually makes it more likely that some crackpot will go ahead and do something horrid.
Michelle Obama made the following comment about Sen. Barack Obama on 60 Minutes in which she said that "as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station."
"Yet what has been most surprising is the complicity, and then the open participation in that process by the Clinton campaign."
This might have been surprising to learn at the very beginning of the campaign, but anyone who has been paying attention knows full well that Hillary embraces the very worst of the right's tactics. When she added ".... as far as I know" after denying that Obama was Muslim, I knew the ends would justify the means for her and there would be no tactic too low for her to consider. For the most part that's been exactly the case.
Hillary has become a global and national liability. Bringing up the primary assination on several occasions might be attributed to flawed judgement but old timers know every Clinton move is carefully calculated. Just emerging from the rural gun toting mountains of WV may have given Clinton fresh hope, but psychologists and Hillary know the power of reapeated suggestion. Obama tried to play it down but Hillary wanted this issue played up so she could blame Obama.
Excellent post Mr. Bromwich. I had been wondering why Hillary's comments were so unnerving, apart from what they reveal about her state of mind, and it is exactly as you have stated: Before an actual violent attack, the rest of the herd needs to become acclimated to the assault. This is true of war where a period of saber-rattling always precedes the actual first strike, and it's true of lynch mobs where the town is buzzing with anger for hours before they're crashing through the jailhouse door.
Good post and I agree: this is serious stuff, not some minor counterpart to "bittergat
What's so ironic is that Hillary Clinton and Huckabee and Fox News and all the other gutter-suckers don't seem to realize just how cushy they have it now, and just how hot it would get if there really were a serious attempt on Obama's life. Didn't like the 60s much? Think you'll emerge unscathed from a civil war??
No, of course they haven't thought that far ahead.
Your arguement has no merit. To first say that anyone who is afraid of the politics that surround Mr. Obama are feeble minding is shows a state of contempt for all who do not believe as you. It is beneath you.
Also, consider the following statement:
"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. "
How many years have you been trying to belittle our current elected officials. I am not a fan of President Bush and his current administration, but your arguements now and in the past are incongruous.
President Bush belittled himself. He didn't need any help to be a total disaster.
To the contrary, Schillvain, I find much merit in this blog.
What Mr. Bromwich so elequently states, is that it is shocking that after the Clinton witch-hunt impeachment investigation and trial, that the Clintons themselves would stoop so low as to use similar tactics against Obama in the primary fight.
In their attempt to right the wrongs of their own persecution, they have morphed into their own worst enemies. It has become clear that the Clintons have no problem with dredging up the most horrific scenarios in order to delegitimize a polical rival. They have become what they once so strongly decried.
Brilliant analysis, Mr. Bromwich. Thank you.
dBlogger, to an extent I agree with your point (actually there is little between the Clintons then and now, they have always been a little ruthless) but the incongruity in the main arguement of the blog still stands. It is hard to respect an arguement against a tactic, statement or personal injustice, when the person making the arguement often uses the same tactics, makes the same type of statements and/or is guilt of the same injustice.
Also, as a side, I have concerns with many of Mr. Obama's positions, but I feel what concerns me the most is this false outrage over anything negative stated about Obama, whether it comes from the RNC or the Clintons. On can not put themselves in the figurative line of fire, as Mr. Obama has, and then cry foul when you take a hit. I want to see a strong candidate that can either believable brush off political shots or take them head-on. The pity tactic only goes so far before people begin to wonder if this guy can and will actually stand up for himself or the Country.
Second!
Belittling for inconsistent policies, incompetence, dishonestly creating a criminal occupation, failure to uphold an oath of office, disrespect for OUR troops sent to die in foreign lands, failing to admit mistakes or refusing to pronounce the word 'nuclear' correctly because of childish pride - is 'showing disapproval' and are NOTHING like statements that incite assassination. Belittling, particularly when justified, may show disapproval but does NOT harm or wish non-peaceful harm on elected leaders, while Hillary broaching the subject of a possible assassination did in fact even incite a spokeswoman at Fix Snews to call for that to actually happen.
It's YOUR argument, complete with painful spelling and grammar, which has no merit and contradicts itself by failing to even understand the quote YOU included.
As usual right wing posters have more of a problem with criticizing authority figures than they do with anything else. To them it is ok to start wars with lies, to make jokes about lynching and assassination--just don't be critical of authority figures and everything will be just fine, eh wingnuts?
The last half of your essay I can agree with. The first half reflects the opinion that the Clinton's did little to attract the attacks that they so richly deserved, not on the basis of their political ideology, which has a lot of merit, but because of their awful behavior. Don't let Hillary hide behind excuses.
They did it to themselves.
And they have no compunction about trying to destroy Obama and the party, all for their own ends.
They are despicable, uncouth, and selfish. Hillary is vile and vulgar in her constant lying and self-victimizing.
Hillary is beneath respect as a political leader. Giving her any kudos or rewards for this campaign, or even protection from the certified nut jobs on the right would be a big mistake.
"Clinton's" is a possessive, not a plural. The correct spelling is "Clintons.
This is a blog not English class.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
