In a message dated 12/19/98 4:11:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< The reason they are doing this is because they are held hostage to the
right wing of their party which is pushing them to an extremism that is
unacceptable to the average person. This is a common pattern. >>
it is of great interest to me that the "old guys" (whom I call Byronic Park)
not only failed to protect Clinton, but took away its own usual supports. I'm
speaking of making the Secret Service spill, the inquisition of Monica
(instead of hushing her), etc. It underscores the party partisanship
certainly (just as the voting on impeachment did), but the "hale fellow well
met" attitude towards Livingston's "manly" resignation (what a hoot--the guy
was caught just as surely as Clinton) really plays this up. (I love
Livingston's saying he couldn't put his family through this--like the actual
affairs hadn't put them through anything--and we're supposed to think this is
wonderful stuff compared to Clinton.)
It is also interesting that after years of incredibly deceitful "law and
order" campaigning, from both sides, that just confused voters (e.g. people
running for offices that had zero jurisdiction over crime talking about how
there were "for" the death penalty and were going to be "tough", etc., etc.),
NOW our representatives come out with how we just don't understand the legal
issues enough for our opinion to mean a damned thing. They are, instead,
"following their consciences"; Oh, lucky day. My brother, who's a columnist,
wrote an interesting thought about their great moral "consciences" this
morning: "Both sides keep invoking 'The Children.' They fret about what
example will be set, one way or another. They presume Amercian parents still
hold up politicians as role models for their children. They presume wrong."
Clinton, I think, is being punished not in spite of, but BECAUSE of, the
people's support. these guys aren't gonna give a break to someone who
actually appeared to care what people thought, (appeared to more than they,
perhaps), and therefore wasn't playing "hardball." Like he was a woman, you
might say. Even the Starr pursuit of sexual details had more the flavor of
"the Scarlet Letter" than of the guy's club.
don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to make Clinton into a born-again saint of
feminism. I just find it fascinating how patriarchal solidarity in the face
of gender issues seems to break down when the man in question is cast as "not
one of them," a perfect scapegoat like Georgie Porgie, who "kissed the girls
and made them cry." And in this case, also had the support of the people when
the other guys were losing theirs. There's a lot to be shaken out and
analysed here.
I say we start a people's recall of all representatives who, having taken
polls on the opinion of those in their jurisdiction, ignored those polls.
What a concept! they'll be falling all over themselves to pretend they never
took a poll in their life! We'll get wonderful explanations of why polls
don't mean anything (true, in part) and are in fact skewed by themselves to be
deceitful. They will, in fact, have to explain all the lying they've been
doing to keep us poor idiots uninformed enough to keep voting for them! We'll
have amazing rhetoric about the difference between democracy and
representation. there would be great whining! Oh, well....one can always
dream.
Jane
