Hillary hatred

I am on record as declaring that HRC's post-hostage crisis presser was "not hateful." High praise indeed, no? But this in all fairness was what I felt. Usually, I start cringing three words in to one of her speeches, sometimes sooner. What is it exactly that seems to affect me so deeply? I continually obsess over this, primarily because (a) I feel I shouldn't dislike her with the intensity that I do and my own dislike perplexes me; (b) it's likely that I am going to have to vote for her in the general and, even more likely that she'll win so I'd like to work through this dislike and come to some sort of accommodation with the idea of her.

[Warning: this post, as most others on the topic of "Hillary hatred" is based on subjective truths, truths of perception.]

Since this is about subjective truths, I'll note from the outset that I am a woman (important fact I suppose), educated, feminist and post-feminist all at once, reasonably knowledgeable about domestic and foreign affairs, and sympathetic to progressive and liberal political movements.

Let's just get this out of the way first: Iraq. Iran.

Also, my antipathy for HRC has something to do with my antipathy toward the DLC. This is obvious and doesn't need that much elaboration. I hate the cowardice, passivity, and ambiguity of what we call centrism, the third way, etc. It's so utterly accommodating of neoliberal power that it makes my head spin. Scratch that: it doesn't just accommodate; it produces.

What follows is an antipathy toward the practiced, calculating aspects of HRC's campaign. We saw it from Bill but he could always soften the cold-blooded calculation somehow. Or perhaps it was that he was less apologetic about it. He gutted welfare -- unapologetically -- and signed NAFTA -- unapologetically -- and there was the sense that he almost really believed in these decisions. I have yet to get the sense that HRC and her campaign believes anything that hasn't been poll-tested into oblivion. If I am missing something, some real sense of conviction about some aspect of policy, foreign or domestic, I hope someone can point it out to me. I would want and need concrete specifics on this point.

Then again, and this is somewhat of a paradox, I would trust her with Supreme Court justice appointments, or at least one aspect of them: I don't think she would ever nominate someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Hence, my eventual grudging acceptance of her as president.

But I have to get back to the subjective part of it: what is it exactly about her that I don't like? I want to say something about her being moralizing and even unpleasant (stick up the bum even) and so it strikes me that on the whole I don't like her voice -- the tone and persona that she has crafted for herself. I think she has made the mistake that many professional women make (myself included on occasion) and that is to substitute severity for seriousness. When one does this, any attempt at levity is going to seem calculating and false. If your seriousness is a performance then your levity is going to be a performance as well, hence the serious discomfort when HRC tries to crack a joke.

OF COURSE it is all performance. Yes, of course I know this. But there is a gendered dimension that one has to think about, that everyone continues to think about. I think at core that HRC has yet to perfect, may never perfect, probably in the end does not care to perfect, the public persona that is at once gendered and gender neutral. Angela Merkel has done it and I think HRC's image advisors would be well advised to study her public appearances for tips. The problem is that I don't think HRC can perform femininity -- that is, soften her moralizing, calculating, sternness -- all that easily, nor do I think she cares to. But there is pressure on her to do so and then all of a sudden she's baking some cookies or throwing "as a mother" in sentences where that phrase makes no coherent sense. Better, perhaps, to go for the Iron Lady act, which is probably closer to HRC's being anyway, and let everyone respect you instead of feel warmly toward you. But she can't, because in American public life it's all about feeling and because when Oprah is batting for the other team, one has to get down to it and start demonstrating some empathy.

But maybe not. Maybe HRC can just be professional, competent, lucid, and engaged, like she was in the press conference a couple of days ago and we can all relax because she won't try to get us to like her: she'll just be doing her job and making us feel comfortable because she is handling the situation with a minimum of fuss and bother. This is what one wants from a woman president, any president.

Then we can get down to business and start articulating our dissent about substantive policy matters.