The Murder Card

No doubt, we are indeed witnessing a historic and groundbreaking US election: before this past week, I'd never seen a presidential candidate invoke the assassination of presidential candidates as part of a campaign strategy. Now I have. Neato. [ Graphic by ebogjonson.]

The torrential outrage and disgust that Hillary Clinton's remark has stirred is certainly justified. Reckless, tasteless, irresponsible, inflammatory, over the top, beyond the pale, crosses the line; all of the above. But I must admit that I personally can't muster any shock at the darkness which leaked out of this glimpse into Clinton's world. This is exactly how I've seen the Clintons for more than a decade. Most big-shot politicians are ruthless, amoral, and deceptive, but the Clintons stand out. During his 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton decorated his resume by ordering the execution of a mentally ill Arkansas prisoner in order to appear "tough on crime". That inmate, Rickey Ray Rector, set aside a portion of his last meal because he wanted to "save it for later". Then they killed him and Bill hit the trail with an extra bounce in his step.

Later in the same campaign, Clinton appealed to white racism with his carefully calculated demonization of Sista Souljah, deploying The Fallacious Flip when he denounced her lyrics with the declaration, "If you took the words 'white' and 'black' and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech." This is the same Bill Clinton who escalated the reactionary criminalization of black youth with mandatory minimums and "the end of big government", leading to the obscene explosion of the prison industrial complex. This is their game, this is what they do, this is who they are. Bill Clinton is a war criminal and Hillary Rodham wants to get in on the obliterating. Who are we really kidding when we pretend that these are nice people who would never harm another human being? Please. These are not nice people. Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when asked about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children under the administration's murderous sanctions regime, famously stated, "We think it's worth it." Not nice.

Obviously I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton is actually masterminding some sinister plot against Obama. After all, she's not stupid. But I'd venture to guess that she wouldn't mind so much if the racist cues buried in the subtextual messages she's broadcasting were to awaken some white supremacist sleeper cells. Regardless, it's clear that she's trying to forge a connection in the public imagination between Obama and danger. Fear of black men, fear of white racism, fear of national trauma; it doesn't really matter as long as there's fear in the mix.

Perhaps this is a tough pill for some good folks to swallow, this hardened recognition that people whom we have been indoctrinated to look up to and respect are not only capable of horrible deeds but entirely willing to commit or condone such deeds in order to advance their ambitions. But I think it's important for progressives to wrap their minds around this difficult reality. Effective activism requires continually renewed hope and inspired idealism, but it also requires grounding in hard-edged actualities in order to negotiate terrain and enable or coerce change. Yes, people do kill one another, on a regular basis, in order to resolve political disputes. It has happened in this country quite a lot, in the recent past, at both the lowest and the highest levels of societal power. Despite the juvenile tone and vacuous discourse which characterizes mainstream US politics, this is not a game; people are playing for keeps. Sometimes I refer to the US government as a "global gangster state", and I'm not exactly joking: I was a teenager when the Iran-Contra scandal erupted and I found out that the US government was smuggling cocaine and selling illegal arms in order to use the profits to fund terrorism. The few figureheads who were convicted of these crimes were immediately given presidential pardons and are respected statesmen today, and nothing has really changed. Stealing from the world's poor, ordering the murder of enemies, waging war against weaker parties who resist domination, devising ever-more-sophisticated hustles by which to funnel money and control to the hyper-wealthy; this is what's going on. Let's keep in mind that this is the operation which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are vying to serve as chief PR/sales representative.

Now I'm not advocating some bleak Hobbesian view of human nature as irredeemably selfish, rapacious, and corrupt. In fact, I vehemently subscribe to Gandhi's view of human nature as rooted in love. As a practitioner of Buddhism, I believe that there's a drop of nirvana in every person. I believe that all people can change themselves for the better, no matter how spiritually confused they have become. But I also believe in looking at our violently adversarial world with unflinching honesty and clarity, informed by our higher natures but unclouded by our desires and aversions. Most people have good hearts, but in this dark age, many do not; or at least, their choices and actions do not express it. This doesn't make them less human. It simply means that we can't project a desired goodness onto them if we wish to see them clearly and interact with them wisely. It's crucial to look deeper than the feel-good propaganda all politicians —  and indeed many non-politicians — constantly pump out about themselves. Otherwise we will constantly find ourselves disoriented, disappointed, and disempowered when things heat up and we get caught off guard by sudden glimpses of where they're really coming from and who's really up to what.

[ Cross-posted at The Unapologetic Mexican ]

Comments

[ilyka]

[giant exhale]

I will try not to babble for pages here, but I love this post.

I think this--

Regardless, it's clear that she's trying to forge a connection in the public imagination between Obama and danger. Fear of black men, fear of white racism, fear of national trauma; it doesn't really matter as long as there's fear in the mix.

--crystallizes what's been making me deeply uneasy about her campaign. Much more than that I'm too tired right now to express clearly, but her assassination remark, her deliberate use of it back in March and her revival of it now, just cements it: One person matters to her, and that person is Hillary Clinton, and whoever gets in her way, look out. That's an ugly enough attitude when I've seen it displayed in relatively trivial matters, but this shit is not trivial.

I'll stop there. Civility, you know. Very important stuff.

[Kai]

Hi Ilyka,

Well I don't know if you noticed but somehow your comment slipped in before my whole blog went down for a day! That was unfortunate. Fixed now, all better. So anyway, thanks for your comment. Yeah, I think the Clinton campaign has made a lot of people uneasy for many reasons but this kinda pushed it over the brink. No, assassination is not trivial. But civility is. Take care. ;-)

[Tom]

Kai, I really like this. Progressive shouldn't mean "easily led." I think it should mean the very opposite.

[Kay Olson]

So, how do you really feel? ;)

Thanks for laying it out so bluntly. I just finished Bernstein's book on Hillary Clinton, A Woman in Charge, and it solidified my understanding that her modus operandi is, first of all, to get elected by any means. And once she's followed that rule book, well, why expect anything different from the actual governing?

[Kai]

Tom, right, having progressive views should not suggest "sucker" but rather the opposite, which is being "wise", i.e. seeing through hustles. Not exactly a revolutionary concept, but important for activists. Thanks for the good word.

Kay, hehe did I make myself clear enough for ya? I haven't read the Bernstein book but I generally like his stuff. You're right, I see no reason to believe that Clinton would govern in a more principled manner than she campaigns. In fact I'd say that many (most?) US politicians these days are permanently campaigning. Holding onto power is always the number one priority, governing is further down the list. Anyway thanks for dropping in! See ya round.

[Joan Kelly]

Agreed, this is a great post.

I wrote a little while ago that it would be bullshit for people not to vote for Clinton if she ended up with the nomination, likewise if Obama got it (for the people who are so adamantly in either's corner that they threatened to vote Mc Cain if their person didn't clinch it), and in the last few days I've just felt like, jesus, it feels like bullshit now to vote at all. I'm not saying that's the conclusion I've come to, I'm just saying it's how I feel - discouraged and bummed out about it. Between knowing what I know about the Clintons and being freaked out about that, and hearing Obama commit to supporting the Israeli government the same way the US has been doing, which seems like supporting its deadly policies to my eyes... I don't feel good about voting for anybody now. And I was just getting used to the feeling of being hopeful/excited about this election. I know, boo hoo, poor me for not getting to feel good about this anymore. I'm just trying to say that I really do not fucking know what is the right thing to do when a person is presented with no apparent ethical choices and yet a choice has to be made.

[Arcturus]

JOan - Unless one feels the need to vote for a 'Winner' (or One-Who_Has-An-XChance), there's no need to accept the bi-partisan choice of War! or More War! there's a very good chance Cynthia McKinney will be a choice as well - I certainly won't be voting for a Democrat again

[The Cruel Secretary]

Wow, Kai, thanks for reminding me of the insidious conservatism of the Saxman's presidency...and the why I really don't want HRC in the White House. Just thinking about the grimy Clinton years makes me want to take a shower...just that effin' gross.

As for your comment,"It simply means that we can't project a desired goodness onto them if we wish to see them clearly and interact with them wisely. It's crucial to look deeper than the feel-good propaganda all politicians — and indeed many non-politicians — constantly pump out about themselves. Otherwise we will constantly find ourselves disoriented, disappointed, and disempowered when things heat up and we get caught off guard by sudden glimpses of where they're really coming from and who's really up to what.'

I agree that optimism does play a crucial role in that kind of thinking, but I also wonder if, for some folks, there's a bit of intellectual laziness about it, too--it's the "I vote for him/her because s/he makes me feel good." Having a good feeling in these instances is a good excuse to not, say, research the candidate's record or policies or biography. Good feelings, in other words, trump good research and reasoning.

Very, very right-on post, Kai...but you're good like that, friend!

[Kai]

Joan, well it's still true that McCain is by far the worst of all options, so your writing on that still applies. But I know what you mean about not being thrilled about any major candidate. Although as I recall, you also said in that piece that you won't support a third party, so maybe that's kinda where you're stuck. Personally I think that US Americans simply need to stop accepting the unsalvagably corrupt two-party corporate-political-media lockhold on power, which is among the biggest impediments to progressive change in this country and the world. The rest of the democratic world employs various parliamentary systems with proportional multi-party representation, usually including at least three or four major parties and a good dozen minor parties. The main obstacle to breaking the two-party system is getting US citizens to understand how feasible it is. Third parties are already a fundamental part of US history and politics. Third parties have been crucial to most of the big progressive milestones in US history, from abolition to women's suffrage. Three of the four presidential faces on Mount Rushmore started third parties in order to push for bold political reforms. Progressives need to stop buying into the disempowering defeatist propaganda that there's nothing we can do about the system; there's always something one can do about one's circumstances. It doesn't have to be big or flashy or socially admired or even deemed immediately victorious; it's just gotta be something. And that's my progressive pep talk for today. ;-) Thanks for your comment.

Arcturus, yup, there's a good chance I'll be voting for McKinney this November. The Democratic Party has been lost for a long time, since the days when it sold out unions, opposed the Civil Rights movement, and snuggled into the corporatist fold, culminating with the rise of the DLC during the Bill Clinton years. However, it does appear that a significant faction of the party is trying to pull back from the worst excesses of the DLC; the current primary strikes me essentially as an intra-party struggle between the DLC and the next generation of netroots-savvy party operatives, much more so than it is about gender or race. And on that front, I'd say that the Dean-Obama faction is slightly more progressive than the DLC, or at least they're slicker about it. For what it's worth. Anyway, thanks for dropping by.

[Joan Kelly]

Ah, I should have said that I am in the defeatist mindset of thinking a vote for McKinney - while my preference - would be a vote for McCain, which is my fear. It sucks! What you say here makes perfect sense to me, and makes me feel like, fuck it, why shouldn't I apply to my voting existence what I apply to the rest of my life - do what feels like the right something instead of doing nothing just because of fear that the right something won't "do any good in the big picture." I have had that idea you talk about, of there's not anything anyone can do "right now" to "change the political system." But in fact that's not technically true. And to the extent it's practically true is because of what you point out - people accept it and shrug and keep going along with the two party system they don't like, thinking they have to pick the least of two evils, thereby insuring the existence of only two evils. Ugh.

Anyway, thanks again for this post and for your thoughtful reply. I am officially labeling you a hope-spreader.

[nezua]

re: the thread

i want to give obama the chance to disappoint me. i'm not voting for him because i want to vote for a "winner." and i probably am intellectually lazy. but that's not why i'm voting for him either. i feel good about him. and not because of his pretty words. i've heard him speak a few times and i've got a secret for those who have not. he's much more inspiring in the the will.i.am video than live. in fact despite my many positive posts on him i have a much more rounded opinion than people might guess. some posts are Truth. some are strategy, ya see. and not just on the O man.

anyay, i feel he has the potential to make huge changes. i don't know that he can hope to meet that potential or that he will do so or that he means to do so in ever case, or all the cases that matter to me. but i'm making a bet he will in many. just like early on when i stood by my conviction that he would stand up for the Brown™ and was just being careful as he is a black man running for POTUS, and many weren't sure. and then he stepped up. i'm still going with that. and if he wants to fall short, i don't lose anything for hoping. i still will do mah biznass on all fronts. :)

[Kai]

The Cruel Secretary, yeah true, I'm sure intellectual laziness plays a role too. The whole ridiculous media meme which suggests that you vote for the candidate whom you'd like to have a beer with definitely encourages people to make political decisions based on the most superficial impressions created by cynically crafted imagery, as though the media is saying, "Hey don't think so hard, take it easy, relax, just allow the feelings we're conveying to wash over you uncritically and take you where it will!" So I suppose you could say that while some (many?) people might be pre-inclined to intellectual laziness, the establishment works hard to encourage it. A docile populace full of people imagining some kind of friendly relationship with those in power (people who don't know your name and wouldn't bat an eye if you keeled over and died) is exactly what the establishment wants. It's funny, because I watch a lot of sports and notice that the mass media don't dumb down sports discourse at all, they elaborate incredibly sophisticated and complex concepts, mathematical indexes, multi-dimensional strategic analysis; but political discourse insistently remains dumbed down to the point of deceptiveness. Whenever mainstream political discourse rises above junior high level, TV bobbleheads nervously take it right back down to simplistic impressions which "your average viewer" and "ordinary people out there" will understand, since apparently average people don't know what to think about their worlds unless you tell them what they're seeing and how to interpret it. Incidentally, one thing I like about Obama is that he doesn't condescend, he tends to speak as though he respects the intelligence of his audience, and I think a lot of people find that refreshing.

Nez, yeah I totally understand your calculation about Obama. It's a roll of the dice, and to me a reasonable one. Obviously I'm coming from a slightly different place, but we all play our roles as best we can. From my perspective, the key is for Obama supporters to actually buy into the oft-repeated slogan that change comes not from the top down, but from the bottom up. Obama says that a lot, and in order for an Obama presidency to live up to its potential, the citizenry must actually put that ideal into practice by actively, aggressively, vocally, physically engaging in the change they seek. That means grassroots organizing and community-building, accompanied by bold initiatives which demand the support of the Obama administration. Social progress only comes when we fight for it and give those in power no better options than giving in to our demands. And I know that's what you're up to, Nez, I can already see some basic outlines of how you'll be playing your cards once the dust settles and it's down to business. ;-)

Joan, hehe well there are worse labels to get tagged with than "hope-spreader" so it's all good. Ya know, to me this notion that "a vote for [progressive candidate] is a vote for [totally sinister undesirable candidate]" is really an incredibly anti-democratic meme designed to discourage dissent and restrict the permissible range of political thought. I wrote a piece about all this last year, in which I offer plenty of concrete suggestions for pragmatic electoral reforms, and in which I said:

In my ears, statements along the lines of "Face it, most Americans would never vote for such-and-such a person" are not only drearily self-defeating but actually rather irrelevant, because the question you're being asked in the electoral process isn't who you think most Americans would vote for; the question is, which candidate is saying the things that you, and only you, believe most need to be said for the common good. That's the fundamental thing you wanna get right before you start thinking tactics; if tactical considerations are coming before fundamentals, I'd suggest that maybe you've kinda lost your way in this maze.

Well, it's something to ponder, anyway. I'm sure you'll find the right balance for yourself, in any case. Keep doing what you're doing, amiga.

Peace.

[edward the Irishman]

Try googling "Clinton murder" and see what turns up. Go head, try it.
Look at the first two hits.