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.

Comments

[ohnoyoudidnot!]

Thanks, Mr. Bromwich! Great article.

[MHainds]

David Bromwich consistently posts some of the most incisive commentary at HuffingtonPost.com.
Thank you.

[Livvy]

I too was once an ardent Clinton supporter. I recognized Bill's flaws (who couldn't) but thought if you put them on a scale balanced by their strengths the strengths outweighed them mightily.

Since about February the two of them have managed to throw everything off the scale that balanced out those flaws and all I have left is the pile that says self-serving, power hungry, no ethics, no morals, no caring about anyone but themselves. It saddens me deeply. All I see when I look at them now is "me me me me me me me me." Hillary didn't lose this campaign because she is a woman. She ran a very bad campaign and when it went south the Clintons started to show us sides I never would have dreamed were there.

That they would use the vast right wing conspiracy (ie Schaif & Fox News) to drum up votes because they are white or stay in so long after it was over talking about RFK or keep stirring their own supporters up with hatefulness towards the person who will undoubtedly get the nomination are all things I never would have suspected they would do in a million years. It depresses me.

[Veneita]

ditto!!!!!

[BillyShears]

You hit the nail on the head with the "me" aspect of this campaign. I find it particularly unsettling that this tone is very very disturbing on so many levels. Her campaign really boils down to one fact : she isn't very good at masking her almost maniacal sense of entitlement.
And now Bill is making strong assertions about disrespect. Has anyone asked him what instance he's specifically talking about.?
The bottom line is that it's high time the Clintins got one story and stuck to it- Hillary is either tough and a fighter and and can therefore stand up to "all the unseen forces" trying to "push her out of the campaign..­.."

or she needs her husband, Bill to defend her when things don't go her way.

[Alethea]

I really think that Clinton supporters need to take a step back and take an objective look at what's happening. I mean, when Fox news is taking Hillary's comments to the next logical step in saying that "assassination IS a possibility *wink wink*, you know something has gone terribly wrong.

Why did she even bring it up? That's what I want to know. At first I didn't think there was anything malevolent behind it, but the more I think about it, she could have brought up so many other instances to prove her point. So why bring up this particular piece of history?

None of the possible answers are good.

Please Hill supporters, please take a serious look at this. Honestly, I might be an ardent BHO supporter, but the last thing I want is for her career to be over because of this. I think she is capable of doing so much more good even if she isn't president. But this is just simply something that a real Progressive does not do. This is so immoral an innuendo, it's actually Republican. It's very depressing, but it's tragically true. Please don't be blinded by loyalty just like the Repubs are!

America can't take it anymore.

[adavis08]

This is a very good post and explains what me and other Americans are feeling as a result of these careless statements. It shows a callous nature of Hillary Clinton. Keith Olberman was correct in his Friday nite newscast in which he said by these staements, she has no business being elected president. Words do indeed matter because words like lynching, assasination, etc can incite, as anyone that utters them should know.

[newddle]

Mr. Bromwich, thank you for an excellent and eloquent analysis. This statement especially stands out: HRC's remark "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." That's what makes this a big, deal-breaking story.

[RamonBackwards]

Nope. wrong.

[RamonBackwards]

WHOA! David, you're one of my favorites anywhere on these Interwebs but I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with your characterization of the Hillary-RFK thing.

I beg you to view the interview in more context than most links showed. She was using historical precedent and she had rattled of pretty much every other comparable year prior to bringing up RFK. The interviewer basically asked her to keep going, so she came up with a few more examples.

The reference had NOTHING TO DO WITH POTENTIAL ASSASSINATIONS OF OBAMA. NOTHING. I REPEAT NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING TO DO WITH POTENTIAL ASSASSINATIONS OF OBAMA. SHE WAS NOT IMPLYING, "HEY, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN, I MEAN RFK WAS ASSASSINATED REMEMBER?" It just so happens that people remember that date because of RFK's assassination, but the point was that, "hey, all these other people were in it late races like this too. remember RFK was assassinated in June, so this year is not unusual."

I far prefer Obama to Hillary, primarily because of the presidential oligarchy vs. "turning the page and moving forward" argument, as well as the legions of Clinton hangers-on that would be thrust back into power with a Hillary presidency, but I admire her greatly and otherwise I would have no real problem with it.

I believe that this specific statement has been misconstrued far and wide and I'd appreciate a correction on your part.

[preemptivelove]

the fact of the matter is that she had used, in much shorter context, the rfk example on at least three other occasions. rfk's assassination and how "late" in the primary season it came is a talking point for hillary clinton. she is nothing if not a totally shrewd, savvy and calculating politician. using the word "assassinated" to somehow show why her candidacy is still viable (which it isn't, unless something horrible were to happen to obama at this point) is disgusting and vile. she was indeed saying, "anything can happen". otherwise she could have just said that rfk didn't win california in june. she could have easily left out that our last charismatic leader was gunned down just when we thought he would win the nomination.

i think this post is right on the money, and i don't cut hrc any slack on this one. there is NO context for how she chose, on several occasions to make her "point".

[smoothdogie]

sir you are naive and possibly delusional in your thinking that Hillary's comments were simply a reference to time. Everything out of that woman's mouth is measured for some kind of effect. she is evil.

[ATLiberal]

I would like to reasonably assert a difference with you here.

First, the very reference to assassination by someone who has a serious math problem in the race for the nomination is, at the very least, stupid.

Second, regardless of whatever way you interpret the context, everyone else is free to interpret the context the way they want to and you are virtually sure to have people who react strongly to a reference to an assassination by a candidate during a campaign. So, again, if nothing else, the reference was very stupid.

[rasthedestroyer]

Medger Evers, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jomo Kenyatta, Fred Hampton Nat Turner and Emmett Till. They kill black men in this country, let's keep it real. Words sound power.

[RamonBackwards]

I agree that it may have been a mistake to make the reference regardless of her intent. However, most people are MISINTERPRETING what she said based on a specific framing of the quote.

If you think that's good practice, then welcome to the land of the right wing attack machine. I prefer to stay out of that realm.

[lostonechampion]

Your post sounds intelligent on its surface. But you don't seem to have a sound possession of the facts.

There are several other examples of races that lasted into June. Yet the Clinton's have chose to use the RFK example repeatedly.

The RFK example is a very poor choice in terms of a protracted primary battle. He had only been running for little over 2 months before he was struck down. This current primary battle has lasted for 15 months. This is not an apples to apples comparison.

If it is not apples to apples, then why does the Clinton camp choose to use it when there are many other examples? Why did she go back to articulating the possibility of assassination when she has already been admonished against it previously?

Finally, do you find it conincidental that the Clinton camp brings up the spectar of assassination within the context of "anything can happen"? "Anything can happen" ..."assass­ination" ... "anything can happen"... The power of suggestion is very real. An ivy league degree in human behavior is not required.

A 2-bit street pimp wth an 8th grade education can see clearly what the Clintons are doing. Why can't you?

[queotic]

Agreed - the power of suggestion is very real and very dangerous. That's one of the reasons why the Clintons are so knowledgable in how to control the news cycle. Whenever HRC says something is "a mystery" to her or "confuses" her, get ready for the news cycle to abruptly change. At one of the debates, she not-so-subtly accused the media of giving Obama a free-ride - the next day, the media was falling all over itself, talking about how Obama had it easy, blah blah blah. I didn't hear one journalist say, "Maybe it seems like he's being given a 'free ride' because he doesn't have skeletons in his closet the way Hillary does." Same thing with this situation - now everyone and their momma is talking about this. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing and was willing to withstand the backlash in order to insert "assassination" into the presidential debate.

[jsj20002]

It does not matter what Hillary thought she wanted people to hear when she made the reference to RFK's assassination. What matters is that a great many people (and I include myself along with Mark Shields, Gene Washington, and Bob Herbert) immediately thought that the remark revealed something inside her that underlies her desperation to stay in the campaign "just in case" something happens to the frontrunner. Regardless of what she wanted us to hear, we heard something else and no amount of "explanation" by you or McAuliffe or Wolfson will remove what we thought we heard from our memories.

[daddysboy]

Very well said and thank you. I have to add that I believe a healthy portion of the push toward social chaos isn't coming from people that believe in progress. The very idea of an assassination is retrograde.

[JanetF]

Thank you so much for articulating this very sad situation and the harm it brings. This is not about telling Hillary Clinton to "stop running", although I admit that some express it that way. I truly believe that people are just expressing their disgust at the continuation (and escalation) of low-road tactics. I would be more than happy to have Hillary continue through the primaries if she handled herself with decency and treated people with respect. Once again, thank you so much.

[shystar]

Great analysis on the current tone of the 2008 campaign season, the practice of democracy, and the cultural maturity of a country.

[robeson]

There appears to be a coordinated effort from both the Hillary camp and the right wing media to make assassination an acceptable political discussion.

[suntzu]

Even as I child reading the story of Alladin and the genie, I learned this, and I am asking Hillary: How do you put the genie back in the bottle?

[standforpeace]

Beautiful post. Thanks for so calmly and elequently explaining what was so troubling about Clinton's assassination remarks by placing them in the larger context.

[Moose49]

"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."

Perfectly put. This was just one more way in which Hillary (like Bush for the past seven-plus years) continues to lower our standards and degrade our debate.

Also, as you noted, hate begets hate. What Hillary said gave us Trotta, who should be banned from the airwaves for lif3e.

[BetterDays105]

Excellent column! We should also not forget that when Al Gore criticized the Bush rush to war with Iraq the Bush administration called him "Irrelevan­t."

[LouisPWu]

It will take decades to undo the damage done to the Democrat Party by the Clintons. Their ambition overrides any other concern, and they will step on or over anyone to get what they want.