Hillary Clinton's Campaign and the Esau Complex

[George_Bonanza]

A little essay I wrote yesterday in my spare time. Tell me what you think.

Hillary Clinton's Campaign and the Esau Complex

When I canvass the sentiment among Clinton supporters on the internet, the prevailing theme is that of injustice being wreaked upon them. Whether it is the media, the old boys network, or societal misogyny, Obama is, first and foremost, some kind of thief and trickster (in contrast, the Obama people see Clinton primarily as an unprincipled opportunist). Using a not-too-obscure Simpsons analogy, Obama is Lyle Lanley, the slick monorail pitchman who hoodwinks Springfield into spending its fortune on a shabby monorail system; standing opposite is Clinton as Marge Simpson, vainly trying to argue for the fixing of Main Street (which resembles the fields of Verdun, circa World War I).

And it is this sense of injustice that’s very telling of why the Clinton campaign acts the way it does: usually intelligent, sometimes irrational, but always passionate and vigorous even against the odds (few campaigns would’ve survived 12 straight losses). If a Clinton loss is some act of injustice, then the corollary must be that the just thing would be for Clinton to win, at least when it comes to the Democratic nomination. Some call this entitlement, that being a longtime Democratic party faithful somehow grants you a paved road to the nomination. But I believe it is more than that, and that it’s a unique story about the role of race and gender in the social fabric of America.

Before I write anything further, I want to say that I believe that there are many legitimate and objective reasons to support Clinton. If one is predisposed to favour veterans with the know-how to navigate Washington, then Clinton is far superior to Obama. I won’t repeat the misconception that Clinton is somehow a better policymaker than Obama, but she does seem more like a policy wonk who would stay in the office all night to make the numbers work (Obama might call it a day at around 5 am). And she just seems so… tough. Having been around politics and having been through the drama of being Bill’s wife, Clinton just seems to have a very short list of things that can truly rattle her. And that’s a good trait to have in a president.

Okay, that being said, let me proceed to postulate that Geraldine Ferraro’s stunning remarks about Barack Obama are just about the most perfect summation of the fuel behind the Clinton passion and frustration. Here we saw the bizarre scenario of one glass-ceiling breaker lambasting a fellow trailblazer. We live under the impression that in civil rights, it’s always Us (minorities, women, young people, poor people, idealists, etc.) vs. Them (basically, rich old White guys), and the alliances are clearly delineated and unbreakable. But what if it was not such a neat binary struggle? And most importantly, what happens to Us when They are out of the picture?

The Democratic primaries of 2008 were one of the rare occasions to feel genuine pity for a rich, handsome White man. John Edwards could barely get a word in edgewise during the debates, and had to grin stupidly while Obama and Clinton got to wax poetic about the historical significance of their campaigns. The best that John could come up with was that he was the son of a poor mill worker (sorry, Abe Lincoln was the son of a woodcutter, or something). Thus, They were yanked off the stage with one of those vaudevillian hooks and it was just Us: the Black man and the White woman.

Some people view Clinton as primarily the female candidate, but I think we oversimplify the complexity of identity politics when we just focus on her gender: her race plays a large role too. You see, if I were a psychiatrist, I’d diagnose all the angry Clinton supporters with being afflicted by some kind of Esau Complex, because like the Biblical character, they feel like they were robbed of their rightful inheritance by a usurper who took advantage of a feeble benefactor (in this case, the stupid and biased American public). White women had to brave the conditions on the Mayflower too, and White women undoubtedly helped their more celebrated husbands write the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and build the foundations of the United States of America. For every historical White American man, there was a White American woman behind him. All the great achievements of White American men are inextricably linked to White American women, who were forced into inglorious supporting roles. Finally, sometime in the early twentieth century, women got the right to vote after having helped build the country since its inception.

The thing about angry Clinton supporters is not that they don’t want a Black candidate, and in fact, it is probably their dream to see one in their lifetime: it is just that they don’t want to see a Black candidate/president before one of their own (a White woman) rightly takes her long-awaited place in the highest office of the land. And most crucially, they don’t want this guy to DEFEAT their champion. The humiliation would be too great, at least in their mind. It is all about the timing, the respect, the dues. If America was a father or a mother, then White men would undoubtedly be the first-born and the primary beneficiary of favouritism and privilege. But who comes next? Who’s next in line? The White man is a dying king, and he has two children with seemingly equal right to his throne.

It is my theory that if Barack Obama were the typical presidential candidate (i.e. old and White), there’d be less bitterness and more positive crusaderism in the Clinton camp. But it is his youthfulness and particularly his race that is galling to so many that closely identify with Clinton (namely, older White women). They see themselves as the shadow pioneers, the shadow revolutionaries, the shadow constitutionalists, the shadow artists, etc. And finally, after centuries of unfair neglect and abuse, the sun was to shine on them in 2008. Then along comes this Barack Obama, whom they can’t openly hate and criticize because he’s not Them; he’s supposed to be Us. But they do hate him, and this repressed hate bursts out at the most inopportune time, like with Ferraro.

The ugly undercurrent of this feeling is that in the minds of these Clinton supporters, there exists a long waiting line for redressing past injustices, and White women should be at the very front. The idea that there’s a racial/gender hierarchy amongst the idealists who despise such hierarchies in the first is very disturbing. It exposes them to be self-interested “ambitionists”, not idealists. They oppose White patriarchy not because it’s unfair to everybody, but more so because it’s unfair to them. If others, such as the Blacks, benefit as a collateral effect, then hoorah for justice, but they still have to wait their turn. And Barack Obama has just cut in line.

[alteredstate]

1. Great post

Recommended.

[chieftain]

2. I think there is a lot of truth and insight in what you wrote.

Over the history of America there have been moments when Minority Rights and Womens' Rights Movements fought side by side for each other. But there have been other times when there has been contention between the groups as one or the other seemed more successful than their counterpart. That historical struggle has been personalized this year by virtue of representatives of each fighting for the same prize.
It should not be a surprise to anyone that a campaign featuring the first realistic chance to elect a woman or a black would present real challenges to the progressive coalition in this country. None of us has had much experience with the kind of reaction the formerly acceptable vocabulary and practices would generate in the context of a highly sensitized gender/race contest.I have been stunned by the vitriol that this campaign has produced and I think your analysis coupled with the ceiling shattering aspects of the contest helps explain the reactions from both camps.

[IDemo]

3. Hey George

Why are you screwing around on Democratic Underground? You have a book to write!

Excellent post.

[K Gardner]

4. Bravo ! K&R

[mojowork_n]

5. "Barack Obama has just cut in line..."

And the really appalling thing is that they never saw him coming.

Maybe not all, but certainly some Clinton supporters, like Ferraro, for whom (apologies to Ralph Ellison) Barack is "invisible." However you want to say it, a cipher, a pretender, the candidate from the back of the bus.

By no means is that a point of view confined to white Clinton supporters, though. I spent some time going door to door for Barack, on election day, in mostly black neighborhoods. I never saw one white face come to the door, all day.

The overwhelming majority of people I talked to were positive, or at least hopeful about his chances, but there were also some emphatic nay-sayers. "His name's Barack Hussein Obama," one big dude told me, "I'm for Hillary."

'I want to win, we need to get the Republicans out of there,' is what I would have expected him to say if we'd spoken longer. I certainly didn't have a sense of any deep antipathy to Obama. There was an echo of a frustrated howl of disappointment, in fact. A recognition that, "it's not fair, they won't play fair." His bottom line, "I'm for Hillary," seemed to me to be his best stab at putting a positive spin on the situation, with a finality that precluded further discussion. Or any loose talk of "hope."

Put that dynamic into the context of the cable channels' constant spinning of both candidates chances.

It's like some sort of disorienting, tumbling, roller coaster, "yo-yo" effect.

Yesterday it seemed to me that the media people must keep turning over rocks, to find sopmeone who will feed them an anti-Hillary sound bite. I wasn't sure she was still with us, but yesterday it was first generation feminist Germaine Greer. She was quoted as saying Hillary was "cold, bossy and manipulative." (Those words resonated in my head, so that's the exact quote. Four words, short and to the point, intended to confirm everyone's worst fears about Hillary.) Nancy Pelosi must have gotten less camera time, because I still haven't seen what she said.

The steady stream of endorsements, and anti-endorsements, the good news and bad news for the candidates of our choice is intended to make our heads explode, exceeding the physical threshold there, for "matter" and "anti-matter." At the same time that they're routinely trashing one candidate or the other, the cable news channels are lovin' their other responsibility -- talking up the likely possibilities by which Hillary can still pull it off, and Barack might lose.

Nothing's more fun for (whoever it is that's scripting the cable news narrative) than telling us the nomination may not be decided "until right up to the convention, because Hillary has such strong support in all those {areas that count.}"

Yesterday, with the 20+ point win for Obama in Mississippi, all they could focus on was how poorly Barack did among white, male voters. Like it was Springtime for Hillary -- and Germany; Win-ter, for Michelle and Barack. Catastrophic bad news, because...

They never talked about "because", or tried to probe deeper into those troubling numbers.

But this is the context, as I see it:

1. There's still some peckerwoods left in the south. (Go figure.)
   and/or
   
2. Some folks just thought Hillary might have a better shot.
   

But the talking heads are always careful to avoid casting both of our candidates in a positive light, in the same context.

D.U.'er McCamy Taylor recently quoted Santayana to say, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

But if that's true, you'd have to ask why aren't the military geniuses who built the Maginot Line buried at Les Invalides, up and a little to the right from Napoleon?

There's another truism that says "preparing to re-fight the battles of the last war isn't always the safest preparation."

In 1968 and 1972, our side had nothing like the disastrous record of The Worst President Ever, to oppose.

Whoever our nominee is, the Other Side's couldn't have screwed up any more royally. By trying to write off the cost of a "likely, quick victory in Iraq," on the cheap, they've compounded the original mistake. Through the miracle of compound interest (principally owed to overseas creditors) the "100-year struggle in Iraq became something we could no longer afford, three or four years ago. The economy's so totally messed up our kids' kids will still be paying it off, decades from now. And let's just hope it's not their responsibility, too, to restore America's good name, and international reputation.

No amount of digital sleight-of-hand, or cable news cycle up and down yo-yo'ing, is going to change that.

In the past 3 or 4 election cycles, our side hasn't always had the means to affect the prevailing, dominant media narrative. Only now, more than ever, accurate, intelligent information really is going to count as "ammunition."

Unlike past years, this time we do have Keith, Jon and Stephen, and a few others. It's been great to see a little more diversity among the frequently re-appearing talking heads, with Eugene Robinson, Clarence Page, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz really scoring some good points.

I know there are others, once in a while someone from The Nation will get on, but what's most encouraging is that sometimes even a Republican will pop off and surprise you with the truth. At least on foreign policy, and it's effect on the economy. That's in large part what Ron Paul's candidacy was all about.

For whatever it's worth, however responsibly we choose to carry out the assignment, we've also got the "netroots" -- each other.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Great post!

People who are interested in this please read Angela Davis's "Women, Race and Class"

[ellisonz]

7. K & R

"They oppose White patriarchy not because it’s unfair to everybody, but more so because it’s unfair to them."

[boppers]

8. tl;dr

Now that Hillary has lost, I expect to see more of this.

[quantass]

9. Hey wow! One of the best posts since Joining DU!

[usrbs]

10. You explained why I support Clinton perfectly, but not why I'm angry

This is a very good take:

"If one is predisposed to favour veterans with the know-how to navigate Washington, then Clinton is far superior to Obama. I won’t repeat the misconception that Clinton is somehow a better policymaker than Obama, but she does seem more like a policy wonk who would stay in the office all night to make the numbers work (Obama might call it a day at around 5 am). And she just seems so… tough. Having been around politics and having been through the drama of being Bill’s wife, Clinton just seems to have a very short list of things that can truly rattle her. And that’s a good trait to have in a president."

Plus she dominated most of the debates and gave better more articulate and more intelligent answers than Obama; plus I heard many good things about her stint as a NY senator from constituents; plus at the one Town Hall I attended long before I became a supporter, I was very impressed; plus in Massachusetts I've seen the very rocky first year of Deval Patrick (whom I supported fervently), because of his inexperience.

I'm NOT a Clinton supporter because of her gender or race, I don't believe that much in identity politics. Nor do I believe that the criticism of her is sexist, with the possible exception of far too many on DU. And it offends me to be called a racist, or a sexist, or poor and uneducated and ignorant, as has been said here on occassion.

Why am I angry? - I'm angry because of the very notable unfairness in the way she's been treated by the press, as opposed to the kid gloves handling of Obama. I'm angry because I don't like many aspects of his campaign, although I certainly can't claim the Clinton campaign has been pristine. I'm angry because his experience and qualifications seem really thin, and many of his supporters are so unbalanced, hateful, and unfair. I'm angry because of the horrible vitriol in the Blogosphere, including DU.

I hope this helps.

[AlertLurker]

11. It's possible, I suppose.

I believe that the injustice and "Esau complex" that the Clinton camp feels stems from the fact that there was a time when Clinton was in the lead, receiving the majority of the AA vote and AAs seemed very concerned that Obama was not "black enough," due to his upbringing and education. Then came the crafty manipulation of Clinton campaign statements (Jesse Jackson, MLK vs. Johnson, "fairy tale," etc.) in the MSM and Obama camp, and "Presto!" Clinton is mischaracterised as a "race baiter." Masterful electioneering on the part of the Obama campaign: If you want the AA vote, make AAs feel that they are being attacked, or at least marginalised by the other candidate. Race-baiting is as old as the world, but is still an effective way to isolate a bloc of like-raced voters.

Suddenly, Obama seems more than "black enough" for African Americans, Clinton's lead evaporated and Obama went on to win many prominent states. I don't want to say that the issue of race influenced 100% of those AAS who defected from Clinton to Obama, but I am absolutely certain that it influenced many. There is a "double-effect, here: Every African American who defects and votes for Obama is also a vote taken away from Clinton.

I would like to believe that this is what Geraldine Ferraro was talking about, rather than the broader implications of his upbringing, education and political life.

Racism is both hideous and immoral, but as long as there is an African American in the running, there will be race injected into the discussion. Dems had better get used to it, too - this "Ferraro flap" is NOTHING in comparison to what the 'Pukes will create, especially in the "Old South."

[alteredstate]

12. kicked

[tabasco]

13. Very interesting.

I enjoyed reading it. Thanks.