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
How I am lifted by the compliments given to David in this thread, thank you one and all for contributing. Very rarely do I feel the elevation of the spirit from the conversation of civilised citizens on subjects of some importance, and how fundamental is the incisive interpretation of these statements by Hillary Clinton, and the media response by Liz Trotta. I hope David Bromwich has visited Trinity College, Dublin, where a statue to Edmund Burke stands beside the portal from Dame Street, because he demonstrates a sensibility derived from this man's perspective. I am also pleased to see he is working from my alma mater, B.A., 1972, religious studies.
L.R. Sligo, Ireland
Another tactic that has been used to de-legitimize Obama is the focus on his "eloquence." It is an attempt to turn him into a black preacher a la MLK or Jesse Jackson. Andrew Cuomo's reference to Obama's attempt to "shuck and jive." I never thought I would hear such derision from people whose political fortunes have relied on the loyalty and unflagging support of black people.
When Republicans warn you of the Clinton's, you took no more heed than Johnny Cochran's warnings of the Gov. pile-on to create B.S. evidence of shoes so rear, that only six pair were sold in the US during the investigation (SIX-PAIR size 12) but couldn't produce a sale's-person that sold him a pair, after a million-dollars spent on the investigation of the (B.M.) SHOES.
I don't give two-craps about O.J. But lets think about what many are willing to give up ( S.C. Justice's, Women's-rights, etc) because Obama is black
Mr. Bromwich, Hufpo may not let me get in on this comment, but your article (a good one) falls far short (as most do) in identifying the problems we have in our country.
Allow me to point out just a couple of examples. The O.J. verdict and how most (even) liberals except the theory of guilt. Maybe because He's black? The force that has driven our politics since the late 1880s (maybe earlier) because of blacks?
I could site many, many other incidents and or divisiveness, "Willie Horten" etc and blah, blah blah.
You make mention "...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's IS that way and has ALWAYS been that way, from native-American to African-American and all minorities in between. The LOU DOBBS of America reach even the so-called most liberals of our nation.
You mention the Clinton's. (I add their rabid supporters or Repug-trolls) They (Clinton's) have always been a part of this system. They may even have taught Karl Rove the tricks of the trade??? REMEMBER this, almost all of what the Repugs put in play about the Clinton's is true! Mysterious-deaths, drugs etc. It should not surprise us now that they're softening the position of an assassination of Obama.
continued:
If this was a white Presendital candidates, there would not be all this talk about race. There has always been white Presendential Nominees, and it did not bother the Hispanics, Blacks and other minorities, we did our duty and voted. Please lets look at the issues and not the color of anyone's skin, all this is crazy!!!
Quite eloquent, David.
What disturbs--me beyond the initial comment and the non-apology apology from Hilary, is the silence of other political figures—they’re not speaking about this let alone condemning this.
Had Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf, Putin, Hugo Chavez, Castro... said something like this during a campaign in similar circumstances, the response from the White House and every major political figure would have been swift and furious.
Where are they now?
Maybe they aren't as easily fooled as the masses?
No, they'll just stand by and let her self-destruct. It's not a good idea to stick one's nose out to be wacked off if she will do it to herself in due time. Politicians pick their battles, and Hillary is on the way out all by herself.
Not only that, imagine if someone said it about President Bush, we'd be told by the right wing extremists how evil liberals are blah blah blah. Instead, since Senator Clinton said it about Senator Obama, the fine folks are fox news are chiming in by openly wishing for Senator Obama's assassination.
Exactly!. Excellent point Jackstpaul.
The fact that the republicans or the clintons refuse to repudiate this gaffe tells us they are out for Blood.
It's Treason.
Fired Up and Ready to Go!
.
I, too, voted for Bill Clinton twice. I, too, have wondered how these people have become so power hungry that they are willing to fall into the Rove type of campaigning that would attempt to hurt one of their own party. Their argument that Hillary can win the electoral map (as supported by Rove) is not valid. Once our candidate is officially selected, it all changes. The Clintons are grasping for any argument that will give Hillary (and Bill) the nomination. I do believe that this is narcissism at work. Bill has to be angry that Obama is drawing more crowds than he did. The fact that Obama still makes positive statements about Hillary, despite the efforts to get him off course, must really get to the Clintons. I remember very vividly the turmoil of the 1960s. We cannot have anyone, especially a Presidential candidate and then the media, bringing us back to such a time in our history. It is time for Democrats, Independents, and disillusioned Republicans to support Senator Obama. It is time to put an end to the failed and selfish policies of the current admininistration. It is time for intelligent discussions over policy and an end to hateful innuendoes. It is time to put America back into good graces with the rest of the world. It is time to move forward.
i would like to also add that comments like clinton made, along with huckabee's comments infront of the nra, and that commentator on fox joking about "knocking off" both obama and osama.........these sorts of comments are nothing short of hanging a noose or burning a cross on the front lawns of the obama family. it's a form of terrorism without a doubt.
Hillary knew what she was saying. She was not "referencing a historical time line". She was saying that hey - in June my opponent could be ASSASSINATED; it has happened before. But it was said in a way that she could describe as "historical"; and then she and Bill could beat up the Obama campaign, and the media, for "disrespecting her candidacy" by making a mountain out of an innocent comment. She has disappointed so many people with this consistent racist, negative attack mode. If she had run an honorable campaign, I think she would have won it. (and if Bill had been honest about his inappropriate behaviour, he would never have been impeached) Some people never learn - but in this case - they have harmed the body politic in a way that demeans all Democrats. Super delegates have to tell her that this is crossing the line, by supporting Obama, and forcing her to end this fiasco.
Extraordinary,this intergenerational struggle about how to bind the nation's future with its past, uniting--I use the word cautiously--a perennial optimism with skepticism from well learned history. The Clintons have come down on both sides, not a bad place to be--we are your past and your future,saith Bill and Hill--but in truth they are neither of the world that was or the world that will be. They spin eerily a world in which a vote for racism is ok if it is a vote forClintons, but a woman who doesn't vote for a Clinton is a unwitting victim of racism, or a gender traitor. A world in which democracy is defined by outcomes which violate its rules, again ok if Clintons win. The Clintons are the last baby boomers we will see in presidential races, and their behavior, is so full of ego, self-adulation, cynicism, and outright lies, that I am deeply ashamed that they should represent the generation of 1968,.which was born in idealism, flawed sure, but deeply felt.. The Clintons sold us out for their phantasms of vainglory, and they deserve to end their careers in paranoia and disbelief, not with a bang, but a self centered whine of a whimper, blaming one another for their fall. For the rest of us, a felix culpa.
Good morning David,
Excellent writing. How can we make a difference re: Hillary, she is no more important than the man on the moon. Does anyone (higher up I mean) really read theses blogs and how people are feeling and thinking? I want to make a differnce, as so many other women I am not proud to have Clinton as a leader, she has made a mocckery of this whole election. I never liked the Clintons but theses latest comments are just too much to even comprehend, how dare they!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is by far the best analysis I have read on Hillary's assassination reference.
Indeed, one can't accuse Hillary of inciting violence; one can't dismiss it as "misspeak." As the author stated, her remark made assassination a "legitimate political possibility," which re-defines the political process in this democracy.
In this context, it is easier to understand Hillary's references to African dictators and to the winner-takes-all, instant-death Republican primary process.
The damage is out there, with or without a heart-felt apology, and there is none, yet.
I am one who accuses Hillary as inciting violence, especially in the context that she's repeatedly made this remark. Although I agree with your stance in accepting her explanation as it being a "legitimate political possibility" -- which is horrendous enough, coupled with her other disturbing remarks, actions and who she's been rallying these last few months, this is definitely a call for violence. It's her last hope.
She's sick and should be brought up on legal charges.
You are so, so wrong. See the entire interview, and try not to jump to conclusions next time. Unless you're just a political operative, in which case nothing you say matters.
Obama '08
A very important article and a perspective would not have considered. Thank you. I hope we find a way to put pressure on people who try to use this kind of rhetoric in this campaign.
Thank you for the thoughtful piece. Reading your blog makes me hopeful that not all have lost their sanity.
This is truly disturbing. I've watched in horror as some pundits excused the so-called "gaffe" as a result of a tiring campaign and serious misspeak, but very few seemed troubled by the fact that a presidential candidate would even utter the word "assassination" regardless of motive. It was treated as just another day in the life of a political campaign. Political campaigns may have been historically nasty in the past, but I do not know of a single presidential campaign where a candidate has brought up the subject, especially within a context of reason for staying in the race.
Below are examples of nonchalant media and the press:
How small stories become big news
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10604.html
CNN: Wolf Blizter's initial reaction to the news was by asking "how big of a deal is this story?" to his so-called best political team. The panel responded without shock nor outrage. It was as if they have become either numb or have become desensitized by yet another outburst by Hillary Clinton.
If it was just a gaffe, it shows that HRC lacks the discipline of mind and thought to be Commander-in-Chief. For example, she may wish some dictator dead that she is having trouble dealing with but speculating that as a possible outcome to the issue would cause an international incident.
I noticed that too. These pundits that Hillary is bashing for being against her, are the very ones that tried to smooth over the RFK reference by saying she was weary and exhausted on the campaign trail. Bollocks!
As much as the CNN, Fox, MSNBC, et al pundits' reaction (with the exception of Keith Olbermann), dumbfounded me, angered me, much more so did the reaction of PBS's panel on Friday night's Washington Week in Review. No outrage. Just an "oh, well." Esquire magazine had a sad, but true article in its current issue regarding Obama by a self-proclaimed cynic. It saddened me with it's truth about this country's lapse into ignorance, fear and hate. The underbelly that has become more and more the very gut itself.
One of the best articles I have read here. It provides historical analysis and clarity.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
