Repeat after me, Hillary Clinton is NOT polarizing

[lwcon]

No matter how you feel about her candidacy, let's stop feeding the myth that "Hillary Clinton is polarizing."

It's just a rightwing tactic to scare her and all the other Dem candidates further to the right.

More at: http://www.correntewire.com/obamas_bidens_and_the_msms_bipolar_misdiagnosis_of_hillary_clinton


UPDATE: As I noted downthhread...

Let's not mistake "controversial" for the media's conception of her as the consummate polarizing leftwinger. She is unifying the poles -- people on either extreme agree that she's a bad candidate.

Ditto for Obama's comments, which purport that she's not reaching across the aisle enough, when her problem (i.e., the reason she's controversial at DU) is that she's arguably taken up a seat on the other side.

For a fuller explanation of my argument, please click the link above.

[zulchzulu]

1. Do I get a discount on a lobotomy to believe that...

Is it on the Clinton web site?

:sarcasm:

[lwcon]

4. Please read the linked article and let me know if you still...

... think it's Hillary propaganda.

[Tellurian]

5. Do you think Obama might WAKE-UP AFTER the Primary?

another abysmal performance from him last night!

[ima_sinnic]

2. lol! gee, she's certanly not polarizing among DUers or anything!

:eyes:

[lwcon]

7. Please see response #6

[Stuckinthebush]

3. Seems to me she is polarizing to the left

as well as the country. Looking at the polls, there aren't very many people who don't have an opinion about her - either positive or negative. Those opinions are not likely to change. That's polarization.

[lwcon]

6. She's famous, so everyone has an opinion

But she is not the extreme lefty that the far right justly fears and that the far left (if that exists) rabidly embraces.

The debate at DU is precisely because she leans so far toward the center-right, hardly an exemplar of a polarizing lefty.

[Stuckinthebush]

9. But she is exactly that on the left...

A polarizing figure, that is. She has a DLC mindset which makes the progressive wing nervous. This is polarizing.

[lwcon]

11. If that's true, then she's completely the opposite of what the media is saying...

... which is that she's the rightwing's nightmare liberal, and the true liberal's darling.

Let's not mistake "controversial" for the media's conception of her as the consummate polarizing leftwinger. She is unifying the poles -- people on either extreme agree that she's a bad candidate.

Ditto for Obama's comments, which purport that she's not reaching across the aisle enough, when her problem (i.e., the reason she's controversial at DU) is that she's arguably taken up a seat on the other side.

[Stuckinthebush]

13. Now that is an interesting take

She is bringing the poles together because of her polarizing nature.

In effect, she is a uniter! :)

[mohc]

8. Sure she is

But so would anyone be in her position, and more to the point, so will be ANY of the Democrats if they become President. The author of the linked article must have a completely different concept of polarization than I do. Polarization basically means the elimination of perceived middle grounds, and impediment of compromise. It forces all the various points of views into one of two poles, Democratic v Republican, Liberal v Conservative, etc. The very BEST example of polarization is when Democratic centrists are perceived to be liberal and/or Republicans vow to oppose their policies regardless of how compromising they may be. This is exactly what happened to Bill Clinton, and Hillary is basically in the same position. All this being said, polarization is the hallmark of the modern Republican party's strategy. If Edwards wins, he will become just as polarizing as Hillary, so would Obama, Biden, and on and on. So what does this all mean? Those in Hillary's camp should stop saying she is not polarizing, because indeed she is. And those not in her camp should stop using it as a reason not to vote for her, because their candidate will be just as polarizing. It is all a wash.

[lwcon]

10. I'm the author of the linked piece

"LWCON"="Vast Left(wing conspiracy). If there's a way to change one's DU handle, I haven't found it.

I'm not in Hillary's camp, precisely because she is a center-right accommodationist, someone who is too compromising.

She is a slave to the consultant class's conception of "middle ground." Fer crissakes, she won't even answer the question of whether gays are immoral! And yesterday she voted to move the doomsday clock closer toward war with Iran. Some polarizing liberal she is!

I WANT her to be more polarizing, closer to the True Left pole, especially as the Overton Window has moved the media's concept of the center to be where yesterday's extreme Right was.

But the "Hillary is polarizing" myth sends a message that the correct direction for her is even further away from actual liberalism. It sends the wrong signals to the current frontrunning candidated and to scared liberals to the left of her.

And need anyone be reminded that the reason the Democrat-led Congress is staggeringly unpopular is that it is to the right of the public at large, vis-a-vis the war, healthcare, etc.?

[mohc]

12. I think we basically agree on everything

save the definition of polarizing. IMHO, being far to the left or right is not what makes one polarizing. Polarizing is the opposite of magnetic. A magnetic figure will bring people closer to them even if they are far left or far right, people will simply be attracted. A polarizing figure does the opposite, no matter how close they move ideologically, people will be repelled. It would be great if we could find less polarization, but the Republicans have aligned themselves so any movement towards them simply shoves them farther to the right.

[lwcon]

14. I hope we agree on the key principle...

... that buying into the "polarization" meme sends a message that the smart political direction for any Democrat is rightward.

It is for that reason that I -- someone who prefers 5 or 6 other candidates over Hillary Clinton and pines for Gore to get in the race -- am passionate about this issue.

[mohc]

15. I think its worse than that

The polarization "meme" not so much encourages us to move to the right, but suggests we effectively let the right choose our candidates. The right can choose to reject whomever they want to, centrist Democrats and liberal Democrats alike. By making the system left and right into wrong and right (this most clearly describes the current polarized view of many Republicans), no matter how far to the right a Democrat goes, they will still be unacceptable. In effect, this climate should encourage us to move to the left, if they are going to reject centrists as easily as leftists, might as well be a leftist. But if we buy into the meme, we can only put forth candidates that Republicans "like". I can guarantee you those candidates will be weak candidates, centrist or left. That is why I say regardless of which Democrat is elected, they too will become polarizing. They will be a strong candidate, having won the presidency, and therefore will be opposed by the right. So in my opinion, the polarization theme should basically be ignored, I am not going to let the right dictate who I choose to support.

[lwcon]

16. Exactly right, except...

This thing is far too prevalent to ignore at this point. We certainly don't want to spread it, but we should be ready to pounce on people who repeat this inanity.

Even DUers, judging by this thread, are buying into this pernicious "truism." But as one commenter above avowed, Hillary is -- and it's not just facetiousness -- uniting the left and right bases against her. That ain't no kind of polarity.

I'm not one of those who calls her unelectable, though her lack of fidelity with the liberal base is worrisome. She may prove correct from a strategic standpoint, that she'll get enough undecideds plus (reluctant or otherwise)all the Anybody But a Republican voters. But the last the we need is this country is for Democratic candidates to clip their progressive wings any more than they have already. Vote after vote in Congress is making us look pretty flightless already.

[mohc]

17. You are right

Ignore was not the right word, "not buy into" would be a better way of explain it. Honestly, I do not know what the best way to combat it. In the long run, I think polarization will turn into the Republican's undoing. This "with us or against us" attitude has held together a fragile alliance of rather disparate group in lock step. But the outright rejection of anyone not in their group makes it very hard for anyone not in their group to want to join. Once someone aligned with the right begins to question things, they are repelled away as quickly as anyone on the left is. This should cause at least a slow but steady bleed of people from the right's camp to the left, and I believe we are seeing that right now.

As to the uniting the right and left against her, this plays into the "third way" or "triangulation" concepts. Effectively they are trying to carve out a third pole, simultaneously attracting and repelling the right and left poles on an issue by issue basis. They like to label this "pragmatism". The issue with this, as you pointed out, is it abandons long term progressive interests. If when I voted, I only voted for right now, or even the duration of the term of office, which of the choices will result in the best outcome, the "third way" strategy is probably sound. But overtime, we would be stuck with either stagnant or slowly progress. I'd prefer to accept a few more losses, and in turn occasional significant moves to the right, in return for long term progress.

[lwcon]

18. The problem with triangulation...

... is that Overton Window problem. The rightwing media, conservative think tanks, etc., have succesfully moved the center so far to the right, that to be a "centrist" is to be rightwing.

Today, a centrist is someone who only wants to needlessly (and without decent planning) bomb half as many countries as a conservative, someone who only wants to rape half the Constitution, etc., or at least will do it with more regrets. Accomodating this is bad policy in the short term, and in the long-term.

Fundamentally, we need to educate -- and I know that sounds like a snotty word, but there is widespread ignorance about this -- our fellow citizens about the fact that there is a clear and present and pernicious and empowered hard right, and there is virtually no equivalent hard left.

There are false equivalencies (and backwards reads of imbalances) everywhere. The "Double Guantanamo" Republicans are presented as mainstream, and the right-leaning Democrat Hillary is vilified as a modern-day Karl Marx. The polar creep in both parties has been wildly to the right since Reagan became the flavor of the month and the Fairness Doctrine was shredded, so much so that both parties are now to the right of the public on most issues.

We hear these false equivalencies when Michael Moore is called as bad as or worse than Ann Coulter. He does humorous movies that highlight issues of the neglected poor and middle class. She traffics in race-based hate, calls politicians "faggots," and wants skinheads to beat up liberals. But human nature (and lying liars) draw us into making equivalations that create moral parity where there is none. Actually, it's more lopsided than artificial parity, because the good, Christian, patriotic, no-that's-not-a-boy-in-my-bed Republicans are always the home team re: morality, right? Or so the Beltway press and pundits would have us believe.

[booley]

25. Or how about this

We simply ignre what the Right says right now about any of our canidates and vote for the person who like the best.

I admit, I do not like Hillery Clinton and it has nothing to do with what the Right wing says about her.

I mean, the Right LIES. So if they did like her, would they admit it?

[lwcon]

28. Isn't one of the goals of online communities and blogs...

... to do more than just ignore the B.S.?

We can -- and many do -- work in our little ways help fix broken framing, so fewer people are fooled by the lies.

Also, of course, when we're talking about the Right, we're also talking about most of the media, and that impacts what many people think about the candidates and parties.

The more often people call out these canards when and where they show up, the less the Right will get away with spreading bogus memes.

[depakid]

19. Reality check

The only person more polarizing in American politics today is George W. Bush.

[lwcon]

20. Please elaborate...

I've made my case throughout this thread and in the article linked in the original post.

Hillary is routinely accused of having polarizing politics, not just personally being a lightning rod because her husband dared to be elected as a Democrat at a time when talk radio and burn-it-all-down GOP "values" were ascendent.

Her politics are desperately centrist, pretty damned far from the progressive pole.

Ratifying the bogus "polarization" and "partisanship" memes is very bad for progressives, and for the country at large. As I've said throughout this thread, Dems have been cowed into being more rightwing than the country is, and we've got to start reframing things more honestly.

We need Dems to work their way back toward the pole, not to pretend they're anywhere near it today.

[depakid]

21. She's actually "bipolarizing"

Pandering to the right has cost her the enmity of the base- there are quite a few who simply aren't going hold their noses and vote for her.

On the Republican side, the far right has spent years and literally billions of dollars demonizing her. And they've gotten a return on their investment. She's reviled by the vast majority of Republicans.

Even so called "moderates" and independent voters have solid opinions- they either like her or the really don't like here. There's very little "middle ground" or "no opinion.

Ambiguity is not something most people express when her name is brought up in conversation.

[lwcon]

24. Once again, being controversial and playing to political poles are not the same thing n/t

And what is that controversy based on? Anything remotely like partisan politics on her part?

No, it's a reflection of the partisan animus of the Dittoheads and Contract On America gang.

The more she's treated like a scary liberal polarizing partisan, the less she'll be motivated to vie for the progressive mantle. Let's fix this framing, please.

[depakid]

26. I don't see how this is framing- it's just a recognition of reality

What the far right has done isn't fair nor honest- no one argues that. Yet the fact of the matter is that the most people's opinions are cemented in stone, which makes her pandering to the right all that much worse.

Triangulation is going to be even more ineffective for her candidacy- and for the party as a whole (especially on the state and local levels, should she win the nomination) than it was in the 90's and early 00's. She can't energize the base- but she surely can energize the opposition.

That amounts to negative coattails, which is why people should be concerned their own state's legislature- and about whatever ballot measure we have to vote on.

[lwcon]

29. The "polarizing" meme is part of a broader effort by the GOP and the media...

... to push Dems to the right.

No sooner had the 2006 votes been counted did the Beltway gurus start distorting the meaning of the sea-change.

The pundits said (and continue to say) "this was a vote against partisanship." And the leading candidates have drunk deeply from this myth.

In fact, they have for quite some time. Again citing Washington Monthly's Paul Glastris from 2004:

It is a cliché to observe that the parties have drawn further apart, the center no longer holds, and partisans on both sides have withdrawn further into mutual loathing and ever more-homogenous and antagonistic groupings. Where the analysis goes wrong is in its assumption, either explicit or implicit, that both parties bear equal responsibility for this state of affairs. While partisanship may now be deeply entrenched among their voters and their elites, the truth is that the growing polarization of American politics results primarily from the growing radicalism of the Republican Party.

Obama saying that centrist HC is not crossing the aisle enough and constantly promising non-partisanship is an example of this dangerous distortion, as are his wrapping himself in Jesus and his hawkish tone about Pakistan. These are triangulation efforts of his own. Ditto for Biden propagating the "Hillary is polarizing" meme.

The reality is that the 2006 election, and general mood change of the electorate, is a repudiation of Republican extremism, corruption, and incompetence. And the incredibly low approval ratings of the Congress in which Hillary and Barack serve are precisely because they are acting like Republicans-Lite, and not representing a legitimate opposite to Bush's failed party.

The meaning of the "Hillary is polarizing" meme is that America hates the Dirty Hippie Left, and if a Democrat hopes to get elected s/he better not be oh-so-liberal like that Marxist extremist, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[PurityOfEssence]

22. Eastasia has ALWAYS been our ally

Just keep drinkin' that Victory Gin.

[lwcon]

23. Que? n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

27. That was a good one!

:D