Monsters in the Democratic Id

"Monsters from the id!" That's what Dr. Morbius shouts at the end of of Forbidden Planet, as he tries to shut down the alien engines of destruction he's learned to power with his thoughts. His subsconscious urges and desires have started destroying the deep-space paradise he's built, and he can't stop it. Dr. Morbius came to mind as I watched the Democrats try to dial down on the wellsprings of emotion that were triggered by the last few weeks of campaigning. In last night's debate they did a pretty good job of it.

First it was sexism, and the claim that "bully boys" were trying to keep Hillary out of the treehouse. I couldn't find any concrete examples of gender insensitivity from the candidates themselves (except the Edwards 'tear' remark, for which he has apologized.) There are horrific ones in the media, however, and they've colored the campaign.

Then came the cascade of controversial racial comments -- whether accidental or not -- from the Clinton camp. Last month it was Clinton confidante Bob Kerrey and his "Hussein Obama with his Muslim father (who wasn't)" remarks while Mark Penn kept repeating the word "cocaine." That could have been a couple of guys just wandering off the reservation, but then the clearly angry Clintons promised to get rough on Obama after Iowa. They did.

A series of controversial statements came in quick succession. For her MLK comments, read this letter from Dr. King's lawyer for perspective and then consider: the Clintons are not racists, but they do want to win. Couldn't this just have been poor phrasing? Maybe - but then came the campaign staffer's comment that Obama voters only like him because they want a "hip black friend," as if a vote for Barack was no different from downloading a Cody Chesnutt song as a ringtone for your Razr.

And maybe that was accidental, too, but then came Bob Johnson making not one but two odious statements - the now-denied but unmistakable drug reference, and his underrreported comment that Obama's "a guy who says, 'I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier Guess Who's Coming to Dinner." Or, in sixties parlance, an Uncle Tom. (This is the same Bob Johnson who pushes some very right wing agendas for his own interests, and makes his money pushes dope-and-bling videos that sexually degrade women and transmit sick values to kids.)

I could be wrong about the pattern. The entire team, with its mantra of "experience," could suddenly have become accident-prone when it comes to racial statements. But there are books on subliminal messaging in politics, and the Clintons have read them. I think they wanted to defuse the "Obama/MLK" association with some subtle language. But it went out of control, because they miscalculated the depths of the wounds in the party's psyche. As a result, even remarks that I believe were innocent (like that odd "Gandhi was a gas station attendant in St. Louis" quip) were taken as coded race-baiting. And whatever the reasons for their remarks, Bob Johnson and that unnamed staffer are still on the team.

Why bring up LBJ?? Because, apparently, the Clintons identify with Lyndon's gifts as an arm-twisting Washington insider -- and perhaps, more disturbingly, with his alienation from the party base. LBJ was an extraordinary politician who did a lot for American politics -- but he was also financed throughout his career by Brown and Root, Halliburton's ancestor company. And he lost his presidency because he wouldn't stop supporting a pointless war. He's not the right phantom to summon up from the Democractic psyche right now, especially for the Clintons. It seems to be a way of saying to the idealists: "Forget it, Barack (or John). It's Chinatown."

But here's the good news: Whether you think it was accidental or not, and whether you think both sides did it equally or that it was asymmetrical warfare, expect it to stop as quickly as it started. It was clear from the debate last night that Clinton and Obama have signed a non-aggression pact. This race debate, and the charges of gender bias that preceded it, have triggered so much buried rage and resentment among Democrats that it threatens to split the party and leave it weakened for the general elections. So if you prefer to think of these incidents as isolated accidents, great. But expect a lot less of them.

As for that media sexism against Hillary: It's hideous and ghastly, and some liberal Dems say we should vote for her to counter it. I'd respectfully suggest that there are good reasons to advocate for Sen. Clinton, but that's not one of them. Even James Wolcott gets into the act, approvingly citing this quote:

"Every vote for Hillary is a knife in the heart for Maureen Dowd."

Hardly a positive reason for voting, I'd say. I can imagine all sorts of things that might be "a knife in the heart for Maureen Dowd," but that doesn't make me want to do them.

Sen. Clinton did what she needed to do last night. Some of us have been telling her for months that attacking Obama will backfire. So will trotting out people like Madeleine Albright, deplored by many Dems for her cold-blooded remarks about Iraqi children. So do comments from her insiders that suggest idealism is foolish. Americans don't want their leader and her staff to come 'pre-cynicized' (or should I call it "cynical idealism"?)

Hillary has to repair the wounds and disappointment her base voters felt when they looked to her and Bill to slow the war fever of 2003. Attacks on Barack or idealism just make it worse, while invoking Lyndon Johnson comes off as another way of saying "Forget it, voters. It's Chinatown."

Nobody has more of a right to be bitter and hardened than the Clintons and their inner circle. The right-wing treated them more brutally than any group of people on the planet. But voters want their leaders to care about them, and about the downtrodden, not themselves -- as I believe the Clinton campaign is learning. They don't want the White House to simmer with half-buried rage like the House of Usher, trembling with emotion in the light of a blood-red moon. That package just doesn't sell with the voters.

As for Mahatma Gandhi, she shouldn't use the quote she did: "First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." She came into this race with a powerful machine behind her, and nobody was laughing. It would be a lot more reassuring if voters heard this Gandhi quote from her instead: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world. "

It might help quiet those monsters from the Id.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

That's a great point you mentioned in there, the old books...could we maybe have less with the sublibitablibibliminalilism, and more with the straight talk on stuff like who's going to unscrew federal spending? 2.4+ trillion dollar budget, and nobody seems to know Where It All Goes. IF our national finance has to be expressed as a negative variable, something's Not Right, and needs to be dealt with. Maybe the First Step, there is asking ALL the Pandidates to put their best foot forward on dealing with it, instead of just by all appearances awaiting their turn to carry the Big Magic Checkbook, or just thug down on those whose responsibility it is to provide fiscal oversight, namely Congress. This administrationer has basically TOLD Congress, 'you WILL sign my spending bill!', in no uncertain terms. Is coercion a High Crime?
Hmmmm....well, at any rate, prospects look pretty dim for the de-assholification of D.C., although some small token efforts have started to have a measurable effect, city corruption in D.C. has been put back by public investigation,
but the real challenge is still Capitol Hill itself. And, it's kind of important that our Government have THEIR fiscal house in order, because in one sense, all else financial in this country proceeds from that, and follows their example. If it's ok for Congress to run what amount to crooked books, then what's to stop, say, California from ignoring calls for fiscal reforms? Not much...that's why I like Paul, I think he'd swing that budget axe pretty vigorously and to the best of his mortal ability, and that's all you can ask of anybody.

[Arg]

Very good article. For a look at what Hillary may have learnt from Rove, go to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3215287.ece
"The question for the Democrats is whether they want a candidate who can play the Rove game as cynically and as brutally as the Republicans. Or whether they want a new start and a new politics."
My betting, unfortunately, is that my fellow Democrats prefer Rove. On second thoughts, though, the Clintons didn't need too much training: after all, Bill Clinton broke off his presidential campaign in 1992 to return to Arkansas and sign the execution order for a functionally retarded black man, Ricky Ray Rector. Unforgiveable. This is the Clinton's original sin, one that can't be washed away. Remember Rector.

[kellygrrrl]

Fact: Many black Americans LOVE the Clintons.

Fact: Many female Americans LOVE Obama.

The faction of our population consumed by their narrow-minded hate, bigotry, racism and sexism will be left behind in the shadows of our evolution

[Doofus]

Indeed, we're experiencing 'political hardball'
as it's played by the Top Two Demos. It may be
unpleasant now, but it's going to get sooo much worse once the Conventions are over. This is *nothing*, people.

For what it's worth, 'Forbidden Planet' was a
wonderfully deep story, turned into a lousy movie, plagued by truly horrible
costumes & props of that era, and sub-par acting. Usually, you should just
*read* such a story, not watch the movie version.

[richsmith]

This was an excellent summary of the matter of the conflict between the Clinton and Obama camps, the best I've read. Neither of the two should be criticizing the other for policies that they themselves represent or have forwarded in past congressional activity. Nor should the principals or their support personnel be engaging in "ad hominem" attacks. And the candidates should be accountable for the behavior of their personnel. The must stick to policy discussion to maintain credibility, however much of that they may have left.

[Dalicious]

The real problem is that the Democratic Party is possibly the most racist organization in the United States, at least among those that are considered mainstream. Everyone's knee-jerk solution to every controversy is to accuse a person of being racist, or sexist, or both. Since fighting racism has become a kind of cottage industry, there is always someone looking to make a little coin off of an accusation, regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

[Moderato]

People need to think a little more clearly about this issue.

Hillary has (and has long had) solid support from the African-American community (John Lewis, Maya Angelou, Quincy Jones etc.) She's run a risk-averse campaign for the most part. As of a week ago she was still leading in the national polls after NH, and Obama's lead in SC was softening a little (down to around 5 points - not a comfortable margin for him).

It is absolute idiocy to think that the Clintons would try to make some subliminal race play, because THERE IS NO WAY IT COULD BENEFIT THEM! Even if you're cynical enough to think they might (and that's an insult to their many African-American supporters), they're not STUPID - the time to shore up white vote (if that's what you really believe they're capable of) would be just after SC and before super Tuesday. Unthinkable that they'd jeopardize their SC African-American support; and insulting.

The reason these so-called "subliminal" messages were all of a sudden discovered is because the Obama camp looked for ANYTHING it could cast as remotely racist and pushed the issue, with several surrogates storming the media outlets over the course of 2 1/2 days. The rationale is dead simple: IT WAS TO THEIR BENEFIT. Suddenly Obama's lead in SC is up from 5 points back up to 15 (see realclearpolitics.com/polls). The campaign continues, and there's time to "tamp it down" so that Obama again becomes the post-racial candidate by Super Tuesday.

I'll never understand the willingness of people to deceive themselves when the answer is so obvious. The Obama camp was not willing to risk losing SC because if they did it would be game over; anyone who thinks Obama/Axelrod etc. too "pure" for such a move hasn't looked too deeply into Chicago politics.

Whether you're for or against Obama or Hillary is irrelevant here; as pure political strategy, as simple game theory, the ONLY scenario that makes ANY SENSE AT ALL is that the Obama camp drove this wedge.

Think!

[ECJLA]

RJ,

Much worse than anything you mentioned was/is Hillary's opposition to making the equalization of powder cocaine and crack sentencing retroactive. Such retroactivity will result in the recalculation of sentences (and early release) of many of those convicted and sentenced to inordinately long sentences for crack offenses, primarily African-American men. Those opposing it want folks convicted under now invalidated disparate sentencing laws to languish in prison for the duration of their sentences. Eligible convicts may now petition for sentencing reduction, a policy that Hillary may well try to rescind if she is nominated and elected. This is reason enough to oppose her candidacy, not just out of sympathy for those languishing unjustly in prison, but for the policy orientation it portends.

Hillary's opposition to retroactivity is a blatant "dog whistle" to whites to the effect that she will dependably continue America's incarceration binge (that Bill supported), which has, in a covertly racist manner, created a prison-industrial complex so infernally comprehensive that it is stunting the lives of legions of minority men and an increasing percentage of women in our society, predominantly poor folks who have ever had an anti-social tendency in their life. Simply put, America's penal system is the shame of the civilized world, a veritable Gulag. Of course, neither Hillary nor her rivals will ever bring up the need to replace mass incarceration with mass rehabilitation, where Huckabee does. Go figure.

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[Querent]

Nice recovery, RJ. Everybody's been lipping off excessively, even those who pride themselves on equanitmity and reasonableness. Yeah, me too. And there's been a massive amount of ill-concealed trolling going on.

I do feel called upon to point out, though, that with rare exceptions, the debates have been amicable and even cordial thus far. The major sliming is not coming from the candidates, but from their "supporters".

Seems to me that no one ought to be held responsible for something somebody else does or says, no matter how much the second person protests that he or she supports them.

It's long been established that guilt by association is not a valid way of evaluating anybody. Even those who are "guilty" of this or that political crime have other facets to their personalities, and the candidates are not responsible for their shit.

Even Bill's pronouncements are not Hillary's responsibility. No one can shut him up. And nobody should try.

[boinx]

major points for the forbidden planet reference.

[rocketoo]

RJ,
I realize everyone wants to get in the last word on a subject. Can I take it now that you are finished stirring the pot on this one? No one benefits as the soup is cold.

[jade7243]

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world. "

This quote personifies Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton.

The other quote is pure Clinton. Bubba was a hick from Arkansas, the fight was the non-stop scandals, and the win was escaping being drummed from office following the impeachment.

Hillary was laughed at for following the hick to Arkansas and throwing away her career, the long fight to White House, and First Lady -- not quite enough to satisfy her desire to win, but close enough.

Change is simply not in her vocabulary. She is dogmatic and deliberate and does not change course easily -- if ever.

Like others, I think you too have given the Clintons a pass on the very dirty politics they've played. As an African American, and one who voted for WJC twice, the events of the last week reinforce my belief that the Clintons "paternalistic" treatment of black America is part and parcel of that behavior I often find in certain (not all) white folks who are "closet racists." They protest outwardly that racism is the last thing on their minds (they'd never do or say such a thing) but persist in doing and saying racist things by "accident" or "ignorance."

In the Clintons' case, this was done by design to look accidental. "We love black folk," they say. But under their breaths the rest of the sentence is, "we just don't want one in the White House. It wouldn't be "white" anymore." Lest they leave the closet and risk being exposed, they send their friends -- especially their black "friends" out to do their dirty work. Andrew Young, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Robert Johnson, Kendrick Meeks, Charlie Rangel, Sheila Jackson Lee, naming just a few.

And when exposure seems imminent, they play contrite, act all lovey-dovey, sing Kumbaya, discover once again their "inner blackness" (Hillary's hip-hop friends, Tyra Banks, Al Sharpton). The cycle resets, starts over.

This is "truce" is as durable as any between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Bet on it ending sooner rather than later.

[nads2985]

Bringing up Obama's drug use is not racist. In my opinion, its irrelevant, as I don't really care what he did for fun decades ago, but it is absolutely not racist to bring it up.

It's not being brought up because people are saying hes black, therefore he must have done drugs. That would be racist. It's being brought up because hes admitted to having done drugs himself. People tried to make an issue of George Bush's cocaine use when he was running, and people tried to make an issue of Bill Clinton's smoking. I was 7 when Bill Clinton was elected, and I still remember the phrase "I didn't inhale" because it was such a big deal that he'd said it.

It's being brought up because, to some people, what someone did as a teenager or in their early 20s reflects on their character in ways that should be taken into account. I think it's a cheap shot against Obama, and it has nothing to do with how he would perform as president, but it isn't racist.

The issue isn't that hes black and used drugs. The issue is that he used drugs. It would be as much as much, if not more, of an issue if he were white or asian or hispanic or any other race. I think it would probably be a bigger issue, in fact: people are afraid that if they bring it up now, they'll be called racists (which they have been), whereas if he were white, nobody would claim that this line of attack were racist, it would be seen as fair game.

[JakeEasy]

Mr. Eskow,

Your id is showing.

[ArchAngel]

This is a brilliant post.

I too am very concerned about "subsconscious urges and desires" that you reference. This could easily lead to subliminal messages in advertising and perhaps even in blog posts!

Forbidden planet stars Walter Pidgeon and ANN FRANCIS. It HAS been been described as A BEAUTIFUL takeoff of Shakespeare"s The Tempest (1611). And it's done with clASS.