REPOST: Hillary Clinton's Campaign and the Esau Complex

[quantass]

Some time back i read this very good original DU essay written by George_Bonanza which helped to demystify the baffling behavior and mentality of Hillary supporters towards their detrimentally flawed and embarrassing candidate.

And then today a very, very good thread popped up on DU written by Katzenkavalier that made me think back to it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5349487&mesg_id=5349487">A problem for several Clinton supporters: Obama was not supposed to run now, 08 is Hillary's time.

And so, here is that original post entitled the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5041176">Hillary Clinton's Campaign and the Esau Complex for your reading pleasure since a lot of people did not notice George's original post the 1st time 'round.

Hope you enjoy it as much as i did! Thanks George and Katzen!

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

Hillary Clinton's Campaign and the Esau Complex

by George_Bonanza

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.

[blogslut]

1. I remember the post

However, if I were to use a biblical fable as an analogy for these two candidates, I would use the story of the prodigal son. :)

[Mme. Defarge]

2. Whoa!

This really nails it IMO. Thanks for the re-post.