Browse > Home / 2008, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton in the News, News / Hillary Clinton and the Politics of Resenting History

Hillary Clinton and the Politics of Resenting History

January 31, 2007

When Abraham Lincoln decided to run for a second term in the midst of the Civil War, he used a homespun analogy that nearly everybody could relate to: “You don’t swap horses in the middle of a stream.” In 1864, after all, people still rode horses to go places. Often they had to take their horses across streams, and all knew perfectly well that a stream was no place to be swapping horses. Later, in 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt revived the same image, in order to justify his bid for an unprecedented third term as president. Even though by then most people were driving automobiles, the analogy still had an impact.Both Lincoln and FDR had the gift, so necessary for success in democratic systems of government, of offering simple and homey analogies to justify their policies. But the same gift can be used to attack one’s political opponent as well, as Hillary Clinton demonstrated last Sunday in Iowa. In essence, Senator Clinton declared: The war in Iraq is Bush’s mess, and it is his job to clean it up before I become President and have to do it myself.

More precisely, Senator Clinton argued that it was Bush’s “decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy.” That is, the Iraq war is Bush’s mess. “We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.” That is, we expect him to clean up his mess. Bush has said that this cleaning up the Iraq mess was “going to be left to his successor,” namely, Senator Clinton herself, a prospect which explains the Senator’s final outburst, “I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it.”

And why shouldn’t she resent it? Would you like to wake up one day, find that you are the President and that it is up to you to bring stability and order out of the chaos and bloodshed in Iraq?

The moral punch of the Senator’s underlying analogy is obvious. We can all grasp it just as readily as Lincoln’s compatriots could grasp his conceit about swapping horses in the middle of a stream. If someone else has made a mess, it’s his job to clean it up—not yours or mine. For example, if mom comes home one day and finds that her sons have been playing paintball in the dining room, it’s their duty to clean up the mess they’ve made—not mom’s. Nor could we blame mom for being resentful if, despite the obvious right and wrong of the situation, she ended up, as she often does, with the task of removing the splattered paint all by herself. Indeed, it is possible that Senator Clinton’s analogy will have an especially potent appeal to women voters, since women have traditionally been assigned the thankless task of cleaning up the mess their men folk and boy folk leave in their wake. What woman can’t say, “Been there, done that?”

There is, however, a problem with Senator Clinton’s analogy—a problem so serious that it forces us to wonder if she genuinely understands the nature of the office that she is currently seeking, and to see what I mean let us go back to the case of Mr. Lincoln.

When Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President, he inherited a mess in comparison with which Iraq pales to insignificance. The states in the Deep South had already left the Union. The previous President, James Buchanan, had not lifted a finger to keep the vast majority of Federal forts and arsenals from falling into the hands of the new Confederacy. Buchanan’s position was that the Constitution did not allow for states to secede, but at the same time, neither did it allow the Federal government to use coercion to keep them in the Union against their will. So what to do, except to do nothing?

Source

Posted by Hillary · Filed Under 2008, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton in the News, News 

Comments

Got something to say?





Copyright © 2007 Against Hillary Clinton Where the facts are - Hillary Clinton News · Theme by Brian Gardner · Log in