QandO

Clinton ran for re-election in 1996. I know you knew that.

And nothing about the "hate" scared me in the least, because nobody on earth hated that rotten sonofabitch more than me. I had goddamned good reasons. I could run 'em all down for you, but I don't think that's necessary.

Posted by: Billy Beck at July 1, 2004 12:26 PM

Ack ... you're right ... 1996 it is.

Not questioning why you hated the man Billy, just pointing out the outpouring of hate from the right had the opposite desired effect as demonstrated by the result of the election.

Posted by: McQ at July 1, 2004 12:32 PM

I wonder if you recall Julie McClain. I know you met her in person, although I don't know if you ever paid much attention to her online. It would have been unusual: she was cautiously active in the Whitewater group, but very active at Ray Heizer's Clinton Administration Scandals mailing list (which had been David Sussman's old "CS" -- Clinton Scandals -- list). She was just about the best researcher in any of those groups who had not gone personally and directly to the National Archives (like Sprunt, et. al.), and the single most astute analyst of the period that I ever saw. Bar none.

She once explained to me, in tones of utter contempt, that the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was, in fact, a fact. This realization had dawned on her before Field Marshal Rodham actually uttered the phrase on TEEVEE, but only as the Lewinski shit-bomb was in high-order detonation.

That was when the sheer craven cowardice of the Republicans became clear to her. In the roiling wake of an entire panoply of real and serious political outrages requiring the summary end of the Clinton administration, this puny item was the thing on which they seized as something that they could pitch Americans as rationale. The visceral repugnance that they felt -- but were never able to explicate -- at his appearance on the national political scene had come full circle. Sentaor D'Amato could turn in a performance in the Banking Committee hearings that was un-matched for its greasy ineptitude; Lurch, the Attorney General, could just lie all fucking day long at every opportunity and the FBI files matter was never seriously addressed (leaving plebes like you and me to move along, citizen, because there is nothing to see here) -- on and on and on I could go. All of it was smoothed over with the assistance of Republicans who were afraid to appear "mean" opposing snarling straight-up commies in the press and government who could ignore anything and everything in order to defend these monsters, until it came to Lewinski. And, suddenly, these dogs got up on their hind legs and started howling, for real.

When you think about the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy", that's what you should think about: how small and ridiculous it was, after what it should have been.

"Hate"? Let me tell you something, man:

I think you could recall a time when I had something of a hope invested in the goodness -- too include the attribute of reason -- in Americans. I look back at the 1996 election, and I might very well mark it in the future as a turning point. Today, if I saw a soccer-mom on fire on the side of the road, I would probably demand to know who she voted for that year before I would piss on her to put out the flames.

Posted by: Billy Beck at July 1, 2004 01:19 PM

Billy, I don't remember her (where'd I meet her?).

But to her point, and yours, you've nailed it.

And that was the point Cohen is making ("this is serious stuff, why are you concentrating on what this CLOWN has to say?"). Moore makes a cartoon of it all.

The vast left wing conspiracy, because it is led by extremists, does the left more harm than good (or at least that's my thesis) just as the VRWC did for the right.

In both cases they rabidly attack with such viciousness (and on such relatively trivial items) that they kill the message with the polemics. The result is they drive away those who they're trying to 'persuade' and their tirades have the opposite effect they intend.

Obviously its going to play well among those already predisposed to believe (or already believing) this stuff. And that's who is praising it.

As for the rest ... well, we'll have to see but history and experince say it will not help the exremist left accomplish what it wishes (although Jabba will claim it did if Kerry wins).

Posted by: McQ at July 1, 2004 01:34 PM

Hell, Bruce, help me out here: what's the name of that joint in Virginia Highlands where we used to toss beers? The three of us got together there one night for a couple of hours.

I disagree with your thesis, Bruce. There is a flip-side to the dynamic you're pointing out, which is that partisan convicts just eat up the polemic warfare with a spoon. My conviction is that it is just as true that there is nothing to be lost in this sort of thing as that there is nothing to be won. The basic lines of political battle between these two half-assed factions do not -- and will not -- advance or recede on these tactics. I'm convinced that the idea of political casualties on the Republican side as a consequence of the noise in 1996, is nonsense. I think that even people who would attribute their own action to such a thing are either lying for partisan tactical advantage ("The mean Republicans made me vote for him!") or, at best, they're simply morons who have no earthly idea what makes them do what they do when it comes to politics, but I'm certain that they would have done what they did, anyway, without that excuse.

In any case, we're talking about a polity that manifestly had (and still has) little or no regard for thinking through actual issues, preferring the cheap slide of sentiment.

The noise is naturally bound to heighten in a culture like that. It can go no other way.

And there are real portents in this. I keep telling people that all politics in this country is merely rehearsal for full-blast civil war. They keep looking at me like they need to lock up all the sharp objects. Well, less reason can only lead in one direction. Immutably.

That's where this is going, sooner or later.

Posted by: Billy Beck at July 1, 2004 02:06 PM

Manual's? Or are we talking about Euclid Ave Yacht Club?

Still don't remember her. That could be a function of years though.

In any case, we're talking about a polity that manifestly had (and still has) little or no regard for thinking through actual issues, preferring the cheap slide of sentiment.

OK ... and the "cheap slide of sentiment" goes to the underdog (as American and apple pie) who's being beaten up "unfairly" by the rabid punks on the (left or right ... take your pick).

No one said my thesis purported that the choice was made through reason, Billy or Clinton would have been a one term prez.

Posted by: McQ at July 1, 2004 02:53 PM

Manuel's. Definitely Manuel's. I have a whole 'nother set of memories of the Yacht Club, centered on the Harley.

I disagree with the underdog thesis, too. (Really: I'm not just being contrarian, lately. I prefer to agree with you, but I can't on a lot of this stuff.)

For instance: who's the "underdog" this year? Who was it in '72? Who was it in '64?

Look: the "rabid punks" have always been a fixture of American politics. What's different now is that untold orders of magnitude more of them have a soapbox. Forget "punk rock": we live in the age of Punk Politics.

Here's the thing about it, though: the stakes of "sentiment" don't give a damn about underdogs. That sort of thing works for NCAA basketball, but we're talking about people interested in getting their ladle from the cannibal soup-pot. Paula Jones was an "underdog" in '96, and James Carville would have personally cut her throat in prime-time if it were necessary to getting his boy elected. And he spoke for tens of millions.

Posted by: Billy Beck at July 1, 2004 03:13 PM

For instance: who's the "underdog" this year?

For the left, John Kerry. For the right, George Bush. For the undecided, all things being equal, whoever is getting unfairly bashed the most.

This is one dynamic in a whole group of dynamics at work in this election season, Billy. It isn't the only reason for people to vote a certain way. But as was demonstrated amply in '96 it is one of many reasons to vote a certain way, and all things being equal perhaps THE reason people will vote the way they vote.

To pretend it doesn't exist is ludicrous. There's no question there was a backlash to the attacks on Clinton. Its been documented. People, whether right or wrong, felt a line had been crossed (even though they obviously must have felt Clinton hadn't crossed any line). And their belief that the line had been crossed effected their vote.

If the undecided think that Bush is the victim of unfair and/or unscrupulous attacks it will effect how they vote, and while mostly based on sentiment, as you note, it doesn't change the fact that sentiment is part of the 'reason' people vote for those they vote for.

I simply don't see how its arguable.

Posted by: McQ at July 2, 2004 07:42 AM

Again: the "sentiment" is invested in the practical return. Nobody interested in universal health care is going to vote for Bush just because Michael Moore is running around bleeding out his ass over the guy on film.

Posted by: Billy Beck at July 2, 2004 11:34 AM

And if you'll read carefully, you'll note those aren't at all the people I've been talking about.

Posted by: McQ at July 2, 2004 11:41 AM