Thursday, August 23, 2007

The Women Who Hate Hillary Too Much

So Stanley Fish, writing in the Times, is already talking about who Hillary Clinton will choose as a running mate. Frankly, the presumption of her candidacy upsets me, because I'm not sure she can win. And the reason she can't win is that about half the people in this country hate for reasons they themselves can't articulate.

And women, it pains me to say, are the most irrational of anybody on the subject. You get a smart, well-informed woman who's against Hillary, and she's not just against her, but she's opposed in every fiber of her being, she's deeply offended on every moral and ethical level that exists, she's apoplectic with disgust. Hillary is "evil," she will be the "ruination of American democracy," she's a Fascist biding her time til she can seize the reins of power. (Yes, each and every one of these has been said; when it comes Hillary, who started her political career as a "Feminazi," you don't have to make anything up.)

I don't hold myself above the rabble in this regard. I'm politically immature myself, when it comes to women. I just have to see Kay Bailey Hutchinson at a press conference or in an interview to get all squinty-eyed. How can she have sold women out, by being a ... Republican?

Irrational? Yes, I admit it. I don't know anything about Kay Bailey Hutchinson*, can't even name a single thing she's voted for (though I could probably guess). But if we were to have an Extreme Encounter - if, for instance, we found ourselves marooned together in an elevator for a couple of days - I might find she was the funniest, smartest person I ever met. But seeing that I'm not likely to get that chance, I'm going to continue to be annoyed that she exists. It's just easier and more satisfying that way.

With Hillary, the sense of perplexity and, finally, of daggers-out anger is ramped up to the nth degree. How dare she wear pink? How dare she show her cleavage? How dare she act like she's entitled to power? Who does she think she is? Sound like a cat fight? It is, sort of. That's how unevolved women can be when it comes to sizing up, and rejecting, one of their own. Maybe I'm a traitor to my sex for saying it, but if Hillary Clinton's really going to be the Democratic candidate, somebody should.

___________________________

*What's weird is that Kay Bailey Hutchinson is the only Republican woman who even comes to mind. I'd have to go to Thomas.gov to dig up any more. Is this a party still so unconsciously patriarchal that it stifles uppity women in the cradle?

6 comments:

NUREG said...

Hillary still (and will always) carries the opprobrium that Republicans felt towards Bill. Others remember her attempts to push through a medical/health "reform" plan that that many considered to be a first (and giant) step on the road to socialized health care. I think the perseption of her, fairly or otherwise, is that she is a polarizing personality; this would make it difficult for her to effectively lead.

Anonymous said...

socialism? you've got to be kidding. i can hardly believe you guys are still prattling on about socialism. you're still living in the cold war, i think.

High Rise said...

Socialism has nothing to do with the cold war. It is an ever present cancer.

"Even more significant of the inherent weakness of the collectivist theories is the extraordinary paradox that from the assertion that society is in some sense more than merely the aggregate of all individuals their adherents regularly pass by a sort of intellectual somersault to the thesis that in order that the coherence of this larger entity be safeguarded it must be subjected to conscious control, that is, to the control of what in the last resort must be an individual mind. It thus comes about that in practice it is regularly the theoretical collectivist who extols individual reason and demands that all forces of society be made subject to the direction of a single mastermind, while it is the individualist who recognizes the limitations of the powers of individual reason and consequently advocates freedom as a means for the fullest development of the powers of the interindividual process."

Fredrich von Hayek

Anonymous said...

You people are sad. Get over it.

high rise said...

"You people are sad. Get over it."

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

lexiw said...

high rise,

Guess what? We already have lots of elements of socialism in our current set-up. We have - I know it creeps you out - government regulation, social spending on vulnerable populations, entitlement payments. And those programs have had positive effects for society, not negative ones. The communist bogey-man is dead, honey. Find a new enemy.

 
Site Meter