Hillaryphobia

In the midst of a piece on religious-right leaders and what they would do if Giuliani were the GOP nominee, we have this:

Several social conservative leaders are leaving a narrow window open to supporting Giuliani in the general election if the New Yorker wins the GOP nomination.

"Where Mayor Giuliani is today, I absolutely could not support him. However, I would not completely rule it out," said Pat Mahoney, executive director of the Christian Defense Coalition. "There's two words that change the whole dynamic, and those two words are Hillary Clinton."

Now maybe Mahoney is just using "Hillary Clinton" as a stand-in for "any pro-choice Democrat," in which case fair enough - but from the way he and many on the Right talk about the Senator from New York, it often seems that there's some special reason why social conservatives should fear her above any other Democrat. This, in spite of the fact that it's pretty clear that Hillary would be the most rightward nominee to emerge from the Democratic primaries. She'll probably be indistinguishable from an Obama or an Edwards on the social issues, but if there's any daylight between them, the nature of their respective constituencies - and what seem to be Hillary's own political instincts on abortion - will push her toward the middle, not the left. At some point, the Right needs to get over its fears of Hillary the feminist extremist, and recognize her for the DLC liberal that she's become - someone to oppose, certainly, but not the worst the Democratic Party has to offer by any means.

Comments

"DLC liberal" is, if not nonsensical, pretty close to it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 14, 2007 10:46 AM

The title of the Slate piece is “Hilary Clintons Anti-abortion strategy” I believe it is (transparently) exactly that; a mere strategy. Obviously candidates of both parties position themselves for elect ability. Hillary’s Senate career seems even more so than most. I believe she has always considered the office a mere stepping stone to a determined (as opposed to possible) run for the presidency. I hold most of her “conservative” stances, on abortion, the war and so forth to be more calculation then conviction.

More importantly, her presence as First Lady always seemed to be a tacit assurance Bill Clinton presidency would have an influential voice from the left. (Your getting two presidents for the price of one)

“The child is father of the man.” Try reading Hillary’s speech as Wesley Graduation speech as valedictorian.

Astute social conservatives don’t fear Democrats so much as they fear the New Left. Those cultural warriors of the baby boom generation that feel a special change America into their own unique vision of what it should really be.

I believe its more than fare to say that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would be, by far, the most socially liberal President this nation has ever seen.

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 10:52 AM

Sheese. You actually believe Hillary's "run to the middle" baloney?

Ross! Smelling salts.

Posted by M_David | June 14, 2007 11:03 AM

I believe its more than fare to say that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would be, by far, the most socially liberal President this nation has ever seen.

This may be true, but you are dodging the issue. Ross is not arguing that Hillary is "not liberal," he is arguing that she is not as liberal as Obama or Edwards. While the right loves to get all hot and bothered about Hillary, her Presidential Administration would probably closely track her husband's in terms of policy. Which is to say, it would be considerably more centrist than an Obama or Edwards Administration on social issues. None of this is rocket science. It's the precise reason so many hardcore liberals prefer Obama and Edwards over Hillary.

Of course, Ross knows full-well that the Republican base cares far more about personality and attitude these days than actual policy. That's why Guiliani gets a free ride for refusing to say what he'd actually do about immigration and Iraq. From the base's perspective, Rudy's constant bashing of Democrats and tough talk on terrorism is far more important than his specific policy prescriptions, even on highly charged issues like abortion.

Posted by owenz | June 14, 2007 11:19 AM

Ross' mistake is in trying to interpret conservatives' hatred of Hillary Clinton as rational, reasonable reaction to issues of policy. It's not. Conservatives don't see her, and they don't want to. They see the cloven-hoofed apocalyptic demon that Limbaugh and the rest of the tools who constitute the media have been cultivating for deacades now.

Posted by goethean | June 14, 2007 11:20 AM

owenz
“Ross is not arguing that Hillary is "not liberal," he is arguing that she is not as liberal as Obama or Edwards.” On social issues I have no reason to believe this is true. Edwards seems concerned with the poor & income inequality, while Obama’s comments on the importance of family and his statements on religion seem more genuine than any of Hillary’s election conversions.
She has always struck me as the dedicated feminist true believer when she’s not baking cookies. The other Candidates would

“None of this is rocket science. It's the precise reason so many hardcore liberals prefer Obama and Edwards over Hillary.”

I don’t agree. I believe that support is primarily a reaction to her war vote, and the fact that she run to the center in anticipation of the general. Either of the two other candidates seem less likely at heart to feed the cultural left base. While Hillary seems the closet radical feminist.

“Of course, Ross knows full-well that the Republican base cares far more about personality and attitude these days than actual policy.”

When you say “personality and attitude” I think “character”. When you know the nature of the thing; you know what it’s capable of. Concerning “actual policy” – such considerations, even when couched as campaign promises don’t seem to hold up so well (“What are we going to do, create some nation building core?”) “Personality and attitude” always seemed to me the better benchmark of a candidates true potential.

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 12:08 PM

goethean has it. In the end, the vast bulk of votes are not cast on the basis of careful consideration of position papers.

That's espectially the case for someone like Hillary, who has been an Emmanuel Goldstein to the right for a decade and a half at this point.

In Rich Lowry's cover profile of then-possible GOP nominee George Allen, he referred to President Bush as having fallen victim to being a "hate figure to the left."

I would argue that the 70 percent of Americans who don't approve of the president have ample reason for their beliefs, but if there's such a thing as a "hate figure," independent of policy beliefs and priorities, Hillary is it.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 14, 2007 1:06 PM

At some point, the Right needs to get over its fears of Hillary the feminist extremist, and recognize her for the DLC liberal that she's become - someone to oppose, certainly, but not the worst the Democratic Party has to offer by any means.

Um, why? Even assuming Ross is correct that Hillary is less liberal than Obama or Edwards, why should that affect how the right acts? Seems to me that it is to the right's benefit if Hillary is viewed as an extremist.

Posted by Al | June 14, 2007 1:07 PM

"Conservatives don't see her, and they don't want to."

The odd thing is that this seems to be true for a number of party-oriented grassroots conservatives, but not for many pundit-reading would-be-intelligentsia conservatives, who seem to mostly be on board this "Clinton is the rightmost candidate of the nominable Democrats" train of thought (which I think is true).

The strongest Hillary-hate-and-fear I know comes from _independents_ who think she's a super-liberal and generally associate the Clinton family with moral depravity and slime.

Posted by the marquis of carabas | June 14, 2007 1:31 PM

Elvis Elvisberg & goethean

"Ross' mistake is in trying to interpret conservatives' hatred of Hillary Clinton as rational, reasonable reaction to issues of policy. It's not. Conservatives don't see her, and they don't want to."

Certainly there exists (on both sides) a potential to demonize. This potential certainly has political influence.

However, in the case of Hillary specifically I don’t believe that the voiced "policy moderation & priorities" of the candidate are what she will deliver.

Social conservatives in particular rightly view Hillary as a Northeastern establishment, baby-boomer, New Leftist.

The way she often distanced herself as first lady as "not some Tammy Wynett" and an active crafter of policy makes me think that she owes great ideological adherence to New Leftism in general and feminism in particular.

Once President I would expect her to use this to distance herself from her husbands legacy and show herself to be her own women rather than allow herself to be moderated by his impulses (the infidelity would exasperate this impulse)

Take a look at her Wesley Graduation speech (especially the end) or her work at the Children’s Defense Fund and the ideology of that organization when it comes to the Family.

Or her recent answer to the Human Rights Campaign were she wrote I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may prohibit the federal government from providing benefits to people
in states that recognize same sex marriage.

Examine how Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s ultimate feminist ideology rose to the fore in her Gonzales v. Carhart dissent.

Like I said “the child is the father of the man”

Its not that these impulses are lying dormant. It’s that they are their weighting to be applied.

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 1:51 PM

waiting to be applied.

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 1:53 PM

On social issues I have no reason to believe this is true. Edwards seems concerned with the poor & income inequality, while Obama’s comments on the importance of family and his statements on religion seem more genuine than any of Hillary’s election conversions.

This may be true. But the conservative suspicions about Hillary's "inner feminist" must be weighed against the factual record, namely, the record of her husband's Administration and her strong embrace of the DLC as a candidate. Bill Clinton worked from the DLC/centrist playbook when he was president, and Hillary has largely followed the same course as a candidate. While she may be a "true feminist" in her heart of hearts, that doesn't change that fact that Hillary's governing philosophy appears to be one of triangulation.

Naturally, I think the triangulation strategy diminishes Hillary's "authenticity" profile from both the right and left, since triangulation is preticated on splitting the difference on controversial issues, rather than taking a strong principled stand (think: don't ask, don't tell).

Take the issue of gay marriage. I don't really doubt that Hillary personally thinks it should be legal. But will she expend political capital on a potential losing cause like gay marriage? I doubt it, since it flies in the face of DLC/triangulation governing principles.

I will say this: I agree that Edwards may be less liberal than he allows his netroots supporters to believe on social issues. With Obama, I'm not so sure. And the greater problem with Obama is that he, unlike Clinton, seems more likely to go all the way to the mat for something he believes in, rather than carefully weighing the political risks and choosing a centrist "third way."

Posted by owenz | June 14, 2007 2:03 PM

Um, why? Even assuming Ross is correct that Hillary is less liberal than Obama or Edwards, why should that affect how the right acts? Seems to me that it is to the right's benefit if Hillary is viewed as an extremist.

I totally agree with Al. The Democrats are going to pick who they pick, regardless of the right. From the Republican perpsective, who cares if the hatred for Hillary is real or imagined? It's going to pump up conservative voter turnout and provide a rallying cry for the GOP.

Assuming Ross is right and Hillary isn't that conservative, that's a fringe benefit for conservatives in case she wins. In the meantime, feed off the hate...

Posted by owenz | June 14, 2007 2:09 PM

I don't think the whackadoo rightwing is worried about Hillary's positions. They know in their bones that her election would mean the country has repudiated their view of marriage and morality being important considerations in choosing our national leadership.

Posted by wayne s | June 14, 2007 2:44 PM

"They know in their bones that her election would mean the country has repudiated their view of marriage and morality being important considerations in choosing our national leadership."

A little triumphalistic (& premature at that) it would seem.

My Bone knows no such thing.

Was the election of Carter or Clinton a "repudiat[ion] their view of marriage and morality being important considerations in choosing our national leadership"?

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 3:28 PM

wayne s (rather)

"They know in their bones that her election would mean the country has repudiated their view of marriage and morality being important considerations in choosing our national leadership."

A little triumphalistic (& premature at that) Don’t you think?

My Bone knows no such thing.

Was the election of Carter or Clinton a "repudiat[ion]of their view of abortion and human life being important considerations in choosing our national leadership"?

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 3:37 PM

Fitz,

Carter? WTF? Has there ever been a more goody two-shoes ultra-moralistic presidential campaign than Carter's in 1976? And has there ever been a more moralistic president?

Posted by Pithlord | June 14, 2007 4:19 PM

A little triumphalistic (& premature at that) it would seem.

Agreed, at least in the sense that the issues of "abortion and human life" are not what is (potentially) being repudiated. If Hillary wins I think it's a fairly stunning repudiation of Bush Republicanism in general, but social issues are only a small to medium-sized part of the widespread dissatisfaction with Bush. I'd say foreign policy, cronyism and incompetence are all ahead of social issues on the American list of complaints about the Administration.

The reality is that Bush simply hasn't done that much for social conservatives beyond his Supreme Court nominees. This election is about Iraq and Katrina, not abortion.

Posted by owenz | June 14, 2007 4:22 PM

They know in their bones that her election would mean the country has repudiated their view of marriage and morality being important considerations in choosing our national leadership.

Er, what? As opposed to the election of, say, Giuliani? Hillary's policies won't be what I'd choose, but I think she's far less dangerous to the moral fabric of our electorate than everyone hopping on the Rudy-wagon would be, really.

Posted by the marquis of carabas | June 14, 2007 4:44 PM

owenz

I agree with most of what you said

"This election is about Iraq and Katrina, not abortion."

Well, I think 06 was about Iraq and Katrina, 08 will be about Iraq and "I don’t know what yet"

Pithlord

Fitz,

"Carter? WTF? Has there ever been a more goody two-shoes ultra-moralistic presidential campaign than Carter's in 1976? And has there ever been a more moralistic president?"

I see what your saying and yes, good point. My intention was to refute wayne's absolutist statements about “bones” and “repudiation.”

Its simply doesn’t work that way.

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 4:52 PM

I would say that it's true that the detestation felt by many on the right for Hillary is not based on dispassionate appraisal of her policy views. But that doesn't mean it's irrational. It's a sense that the combination of her views and her personality is particularly toxic.

It also includes the perception, present from the very beginning of the Clintons' rise, that she has a very strong personal hatred of them.

Posted by Maclin Horton | June 14, 2007 5:44 PM

As for mis-directed, self-destructive demonization and hate, the left and the Democrats actually thought Alberto Gonzalez would be a welcome relief to John Ashcroft.

Enough said.

Posted by CPA | June 14, 2007 5:48 PM

"As for mis-directed, self-destructive demonization and hate, the left and the Democrats actually thought Alberto Gonzalez would be a welcome relief to John Ashcroft.

Enough said."

Uh, any liberal who has made a public comment on the matter has praised Ashcroft for stoutly refusing to sign off on the Bush Administration's assaults on the Bill of Rights. By contrast, most conservatives continue to defend Alberto "the Torturer's Apprentice" Gonzales against any and all criticism whatsoever.

Posted by Blackstone | June 14, 2007 6:11 PM

Rew: I don't really doubt that Hillary personally thinks it should be legal. But will she expend political capital on a potential losing cause like gay marriage?

Why would she or any other presidential candidate have to? The issue is being fought at the state level and presidents can happily avoid it.

Posted by JonF | June 14, 2007 9:21 PM

Blackstone:

Yes, now that we know THAT about Ashcroft. But when Ashcroft was actually AG, he was far more demonized (where demonization means assault beyond disliking what he's actually done) than Gonzales has been. People loathe Gonzales because he's an incompetent worm. Ashcroft was hated mostly for his freaky religion and statue-dressing, not on substantive grounds.

Posted by the marquis of carabas | June 14, 2007 10:23 PM

Maclin is correct - Ross is leaving out the personality aspect. Byron York has an interesting article in the latest National Review discussing some of these issues as they are presented in the two recent books about Hillary. No bombshells, but some enlightening pieces of information. Such as the way she acted like she was the one who had been elected President in 1992, going so far as to try and lay claim to the office space that traditionally went to the VP. And telling Bill Bradley that if any senators questioned her health care plan, the WH would "demonize" them, before even finding out what it was he objected to. She would be a Democratic version of Nixon.

Posted by Mike S. | June 16, 2007 8:16 AM

She would be a Democratic version of Nixon.

Scary thought. Both with regards to the unpopular war we are in and the history of scandal and paranoia. We don't need that again.

As to Hillaryphobia, I think it is partly demonization by the right wing media, partly an antifeminist backlash, and partly perception that she will use the instruments of power to attack them. Bill wanted to appropriate the Right's ideas, Hillary attacked them. Plus the Clinton Justice Department with it focus on domestic terrorism seemed like a misuse of government power to attack conservatives (I don't doubt there was an element of that, but it was mostly a case of fighting the last war).

Posted by Don | June 18, 2007 12:02 PM