On 7 Oct 2023, at 10:58, David Garcia wrote:
> Question from a non US citizen: is Hillary Clinton's statement on a recent
> CNN interview that "Supporters of Donald Trump may need to be “deprogrammed”
> a candidate for the most idiotic remark ever made by a senior politician ? To
> me it encapsulates much of whats wrong with the progressive liberal
> engagement with the world beyond its own silo boiled down to a sinister
> soundbite. Its important to understand whats going on if only as a clue to
> anyone looking to better understand the Trumpian appeal.
Yes. Accurate or not, it was profoundly bad judgment on every level. But
profoundly bad judgment is the Clintons' (plural) hallmark style. At least Bill
mostly has the sense to STFU, particularly at sensitive moments — like, say,
the delicate, once-in-a-zillennium conjuncture when GOP House leadership is in
chaos, Dems are wooing (alleged) GOP moderates to break Trump's stranglehold on
the US imagination, and Trump's empire of litigation is crumbling around his
head. Hillary Clinton ("HC" hereafter), in contrast, does the opposite: that's
exactly then when she, one of the most QUOTE-polarizing-UNQOUTE figures in US
politics, will call attention to herself with a "deplorable"-grade soundbite.
HC is difficult to talk about, because she occupies a supposed political
center"that's largely of her own and her husband's making, through their
reorientation of the Dems away from working-class and minority concerns and
toward a toxic mix of *financialized identity*. There are more common name for
that, like "OK Boomer": a nexus of political-economic structural biases hidden
behind a glass of Pinot Grigio and repartee made up of denialist, 'splainy
"truths." To criticize HC is to criticize not just her as a person or as a
symbol but the fragile edifice of self-seeking hypocrisy that imagines itself
to be both the "center" and the "left," somehow, as well as the "resistance,"
the "reality-based community," the only thing that stands between "us" and the
apocalypse, etc.
Similar things could be said about various Blairites in the UK, and I'm sure
other politicians in other contexts. But in HC's case there are additional
complications, stemming from her gender — which isn't optional or external, is
it? — and the history of how it's has been used, counter-used, meta-used, etc.
Much of what I said above is about imaginaries, but HC's gender aspect is
*very* real. Criticisms of her resonate deeply with many women, and that
resonance itself matters: as a moment, a truth, a guide, a lesson, and more.
I'd be delighted to see women take control of the US for the next few
centuries, but with a few exceptions, and HC is one of them. She's immensely
accomplished and, unlike many prominent figures, has mostly tried to do what
she thinks is right. But it's one thing to acknowledge someone's achievements
and status, quite another to reframe them by saying — as people did in the last
election — that "she's the most qualified." She was *more* qualified than
Trump, which is a hilariously low bar; but qualifications don't entitle you to
something you desire. She sees herself as the presidential heir apparent and
her return to the White House as a restoration. And that, I think, explains her
penchant for saying aggressively ill-judged things at aggressively ill-judged
times: they're a gambit for attention.
That's the why, but not the why *now*? She knows very well it was an insanely
provocative thing to say, tailor-made to garner attention. She's certainly
aware of debates about whether Biden is "too old," non-debates about the fact
that Harris would be unelectable if she ran for president, and the fact that No
One Ever wants a Biden–Trump rematch. My guess: HC said it not just to get
herself back in the news, but to get herself back in the political imaginary as
a fallback candidate for the Democrats.
The fact that she's basically right is incidental, imo. "Deprogramming" evokes
some very weird, and under-'processed' threads in US cultural history, mainly
centering on allegations of Chinese communist "brainwashing" in the '50s, to
the flowering of cult culture in the '70s, to the networked neo-paranoia of the
'90s (with the Clintons at center stage, no less). The conceptual divide that
these things share in common is precisely the dissolution of the individual
into a larger ideology; but in explicit US culture, individualist discourse
always prevail ideological discourse — so framing the problem in that way will
*always* be taken, paradoxically, as a personal attack en masse. It certainly
isn't a pragmatic effort to build bridges and persuade the opposition; it's for
her supporters.
tl;dr: she's firing up her own base.
Ted
--
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: [email protected]
