The Hatred of Hillary

In the current edition, The Economist asks a very good question – why is Hillary so hated? The article then attempts to answer the question. I believe they only discovered two thirds of the right answer.

The first third of the story is to examine whether Hillary truly warrants hatred. Perhaps everyone is right to hate her, that her character or intentions or behaviour warrant such a reaction.

The article concludes, correctly in my view, that there is nothing to hate and plenty to admire. True, she is a career politician, so has to pivot (or triangulate) often, with some convictions that are hard to pin down. True, she is sometimes excessively private or defensive. And, true, she is a rotten public speaker.

But are those paltry flaws enough to engender hatred? Not many of us would escape if that were true. And there is undeniably much in the positive column. She has been a diligent public servant, and made a real difference for excellent causes, notably the rights of women and children. She has been cynical but also courageous, for example towards Putin. She works hard and is reputedly a demanding but a fair and somewhat empathetic boss. She handled the behaviour of her husband with great dignity. She clearly has a heart, and has been a good parent. What’s not to admire?

The Economist makes all these points, and also destroys the false or exaggerated claims against her such as Benghazi, e-mails or even Whitewater. There is really nothing to hate – yet she is widely hated.

This brings us to the second third of the discussion. Do lots of people have a strong propensity to hate her? That would help to explain why she would be hated despite the lack of objective grounds for hatred.

Here The Economist is brave, and points a finger squarely at gender as a root cause. I like this facet of the new brave Economist with its female editor – there was also an excellent, uncompromising article about gender abuse a couple of weeks ago. Here, the article concludes that behind the hatred of Hillary lies fear or jealousy or denigration of a successful woman. Traits that would be lauded in a man, such as persistence, determination, outspokenness, even success, are derided in a woman.

I wonder if this applies to me. I certainly struggled with all my female bosses. Margaret Thatcher certainly engendered more unfriendly emotion in me that any male public figure ever has (even including that disgrace to humanity called Trump). I still struggle to feel respect for my mum even four years after her death.

Hillary, and this hypothesis of The Economist about her, offers all men further cause to look more deeply at how we view women. The glass ceiling is certainly still present, evidenced in the US by the shameful pay gap and maternity provision. Even if we don’t fall into the Hate Hillary camp, are we doing enough to rectify historical wrongs?

And what about women? It is not only men who hate Hillary, and many women still claim to support Trump despite his proven abusive attitude. There must be some deep emotions at work here. Certainly in my work experience, the most destructive relationships I observed were between women. Women are not always their own best allies when it comes to female emancipation.

Anyway, I buy the argument from The Economist. Hillary is a stronger target for hatred because of her gender.

But that cannot be the whole story, or there would be widespread hatred of many successful and admirable women. Why is Hillary in particular hated? This is the third part of the story, the part I think The Economist missed or at least underemphasised.

The fact is that Hillary has been the target of a relentless, vitriolic, perhaps unprecedented campaign of hate for twenty years. And there is even a root cause for that, namely that those mounting the campaign have no other arguments left.

The extent of the campaign is clear, and dates from long before Donald Trump. There have been seventeen congressional investigations into Benghazi. Seventeen! Even Republicans have admitted that their primary motivation is the political one of discrediting Hillary.

The Republican cause has serious money behind it. And Hillary has been an obvious target ever since Bill was president. Tarnish Hillary, and Gore will be less likely to defeat Bush. Hillary was the presumptive candidate in 2008 to tarnish, until Obama showed up in left field. And she has been the 2016 presumptive candidate ever since 2008, really.

And the main reason the coalition of money has rounded on Hillary is the lack of any positive resonant alternative message. On social issues, the Republican base has lost all the arguments and demographics are chipping away at any remaining audience. On foreign policy, Bush’s wars have eliminated any appetite for further intervention. And on economic policy, the cracks in the edifice are even wider.

Republicans have a valid argument in highlighting the need to address the unsustainability of current entitlements and the trend of debt. But the greed coalition has tied them to eliminate tax as any part of a potential solution. So all they can do is to hammer on about more trade and ever smaller government, which plainly make the core issues facing voters - rising inequality, static median incomes, crippling personal debts and crumbling infrastructure – even worse.

That leaves Republicans and their hidden supporters two choices. One is to pander to conspiracy, nationalism and bigotry – the Trump platform. The other is to forget about any platform at all, and simply try to make the other side even less electable than they are – the Hate Hillary message, combined with shameful attempts to hamper voting.

To their credit, The Economist has started to highlight the cracks in the neo-liberal edifice, and a few lonely Republicans are starting to seek a new platform. Promoting competition, cushioning losers from globalisation, Keynesian fiscal intervention and rectifying the worst anomalies of the age of greed would form part of the core of this platform. Taxing carbon and Tobin would be great ideas too whose time may have finally come.

But, in the meantime, all we have is the wreckage of Trump and the residual hatred of Hillary. I predict a single term presidency with continued gridlock, during which most underlying issues deteriorate further. Even if the senate goes blue in 2016, it will revert red in 2018. In 2020, a Republican will be elected to the White House, because incumbency will only add fuel to Hillary hatred. Let us hope that by then they have some serious policies. It feels an unlikely hope.

The Economist asked a good question, and provided two thirds of a good answer. The final third of the answer exposes a void of policy of the right. As a self-appointed guardian of market friendly economic policy, perhaps the magazine can be part of the solution as well the diagnosis.