A LITTLE NONSENSE NOW AND THEN...

Is relished by the wisest men, as Willy Wonka told us (in 1971, not 2005).

Noted pontificabloviator Andrew Sullivan recently wrote a column explaining his belief why Hillary Clinton will not be elected President (must have been a slow week for Andrew to pick such an uninspiring topic - what's the matter - you weren't able to lecture anyone in the last seven days about your moral invincibility in a way that your readers would have found entertaining?)

Sullivan writes, "Catch No 1 is that Americans, by and large, don’t like her and don’t want to intensify the culture wars that have already ripped the country apart. More than any other single figure, Hillary represents one side in that war, fairly or unfairly."

So, he says, we don't want to intensify the cultue wars. Coincidentally or not, the next paragraph he writes describes how Hillary's nomination would serve to automatically energize the foamy fundie base. So, one must assume, therefore, that when he says we don't want to intensify the culture wars, we don't want to VOTE for her, as doing so would intensify those wars (i.e. he knows that her NOMINATION would intensify the culture wars, but his culture wars comment referred to culture wars fomented by her PRESIDENCY, not her nomination).

What makes Sullivan think that Americans do not want to elect a President that, once installed in the White House, takes actions that intensify the culture wars? George Bush was "elected" twice. To the extent he was "elected" with a higher popular-vote margin (I giggle at the word "higher") the second time, it is because his actions from 2000-2004 intensified the culture wars. (To the extent that he "won" at all in 2000, it was because, in part, of his intensification of the culture wars while he served as guvnuh of Texas). In other words, Americans vote for people who have intensified culture wars, who do intensify culture wars, and who promise to intensify them in the future.

Sullivan may not believe that an OVERWHELMING majority of Americans do so, but an overwhelming majority of Americans is not needed to put one party's candidate in the Oval Office. Which leads one to the obvious point: if the last two elections have taught us anything, it is that the electorate is just about evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. When an electorate appears to be permanently split, it is the little, trivial irrelevant things - the culture wars - the nonissues - that move it one way or the other. When one uses the term "culture warrior," one is referring to a Republican, since Republicans start culture wars - i.e. they are the ones who propose the initiatives that limit individual and group freedom. If America were in fact fed up with this behavior, then guess what? At least one of the three branches of the federal government would not be under Republican control.

Sullivan, I believe, may personally be sick of the culture wars (simply because he thinks he is morally superior to others), but to the extent that he thinks ALL Americans are, he is most certainly mistaken, and his thinking in this regard constitutes speculative projection. If anything, Americans may not want to vote for Hillary precisely BECAUSE they like culture wars: the culture warriors have convinced a sufficient segment of the population that she is evil; ergo, she is hated (when you think about it, what actually has this woman done of note, good or bad, since her husband became President, that justifies the utter hatred of her? If you can answer that, answer this: assuming she has done horrible things, then why does her husband, who has apparently done like "horrible" things, have such a higher approval rating than her? Why does Laura Bush? The answer, I think, has to do with the implied message the culture warriors are sending out: it's evil enough when a man says we have things like a right to privacy and that church should be separated from state; when an outspoken, surly-appearing, highly educated woman - who may have, admittedly, engaged in shady business in the past - although that is an afterthought to these folks' mode of thinking - says such things, that's just going too far. Think I'm saying Hillary is the victim of gender bias? The question is not susceptible of an easy answer; but, as long as the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, Kate O'Beirne, Linda Chavez, et. al, remain, let's just say that the words coming out of Hillary's mouth are being filtered by the fundies through a certain lens).

So, I believe Mr. Sullivan when he says Hillary will not be elected. As to why, though (he also cites the potential for a dynastic Clintonian reign as another reason inveighing against a Hillary presidency; such potential, while it might factor into the minds of some voters so as to make them vote against Hillary, hasn't stopped the Bush family from being in the White House for 20 years), I must disagree: she will not be elected precisely BECAUSE too many Americans - whether willingly or note - are all to eager to choose sides in the culture wars. This is a pity. If the phony culture war "issues" did not loom so large like so much defunct factory stench, Hillary might be able to be forced to articulate her positions on the real issues. Then, perhaps, in all likelihood, she would be revealed to be the triangulator that so many believe she is. Pity, though, that we'll never be able to find out. We like our culture wars too much.