Why they think everything is Clinton's fault: The Culture Wars

[Az]

That depends on what sex means.

Bill Clinton saw the world in greys. Things were neither all right or all wrong. He recognised that each person had their own point of view and that within their world view they had different measures of what was right and wrong.

We each have our own view of how things are. Its part of the package when you are constrained by a subjective view of the world around you. No one else is privy to your particular subjective view. And from this we each struggle to make sense of the world and how to get along with all these other people with their own subjective views.

Bill Clinton is a product of the Post Modern society. It is the creation of the realisation that no one view can be forced on another in a open society. The means of determining right and wrong is not fixed. It is flexible and depends on the balance of opinions in the society. Nothing could possibly be more destructive to fixed authoratative morality in the world.

The forces that believe in dogmatic moral authority are threatened by the Post Modern Society. It corrodes their claim to moral certainty. It changes the rules of the game. It removes certainty.

They just do not trust it. Without a fixed source of morality they believe it is impossible to come up with a valid creation of a moral code. And in Bill Clinton they see evidence for this.

It takes a great deal of honesty to forge a moral code. You have to examine each aspect of the society and each voice. From these you have to sift through the various beliefs and assertions and find the common threads. You have to be prepared to dismantle your own beliefs and reconsider old codes. And from this you have to synthesize a new code that extend fairness to all as best as you can. To try to use this system to your own advantage is to abuse it.

When they set their sites on Bill they were hunting the abuse of this moral code. They were attempting to prove its failure in him. They sifted through every aspect of his life looking for something they could hang on him as a moral failure. And they found it in the form of Monica. This represents to them the failure of Post Modern Society. It is the flag they raise to champion their moral certainty.

[Az]

1. Self kick

That fell through too fast. :kick:

[info being]

3. It is hard to predict how fast posts will fall

I've indulged in the occasional self-kick as well:)

[info being]

2. Beautiful post

I completely agree with you. For many dogmatic, religious types, their moral code *is* the fact that everyone else ought to be exactly like them. This position is, of course, inherently in conflict with reality. It is only possible to maintain when you are sheltered from the larger reality...and so they seclude themselves in homogeneous suburbs and with acceptable media. When encountered with views that do not mesh with their flawed beliefs, "la la la" is the only logical response.

Dogmatics are plagued with an obsolete worldview that is becoming more incompatible with reality every day.

[robbedvoter]

4. It is definitely part of it. But the rest is what Charlie Rangel said

in Harlem: "There's no one who tried to take this man down who didn;t try to take us down"
or as Lyons said: when you see a Clinton hater, see who else they hate.
Somehow, he carried with him the good ol' racial wars that still rage on.

[Az]

6. Ending racism was part of it

Ending racism is much of what gave impetus to Post Modernism in our society. Racism came from a moral certainty on the part of the oppressors that they were superior. They honestly believed that seperation was an aspect of goodness.

In order to clear the way to end racism a lot of people had to reexamine their own beliefs. They had to dismantle the underpinnings of what they believed. They had to see that it was built upon faulty claims. Only then could they find their way to fighting to end racism.

Its the same process now. We are still uncovering new oppressions. It comes faster and more frequently now. Things that at one time seemed a perfectly acceptable form of prejudice are disintegrating. We are destroying the bedrock of the measure that lasted for centuries. This causes many people a great deal of stress. They cannot or will not reconsider their positions in the new ways and thus see the conclusions of the society as increasingly morally bankrupt. It is the errosionof morallity in their eyes.

[JHB]

5. That's half of it

The other half is that the Clintons were a screen. A big, wide drive-in-movie grade screen where people were encouraged to project what they either dreamed of seeing in a "baby boom" president (this is what a lot of liberals did) or everything they hated about liberals, boomers, the 60's, and everything they expected to hate about a boomer president.

And, of course, people weren't encouraged to be moderate about it, especially on the "hate" side. Unreserved, full-blown spews of flame were the order of the day; nothing less would satisfy.

[Az]

8. He was targetted from day one

Mostly from the right though. The left simply saw him as the logical flow of continuity in the progressing society. The right saw him as either representitive of the decay in society or as a tool to enflame the morally dogmatic.

[JHB]

13. Targeted from T minus one year and counting

One of the books (Hunting of the President?) mentions a roundabout offer made to Clinton to stay out of the 92 election. When he didn't, the Bush "oppo research" people went after him full-bore.

It wasn't the "left" that saw him as a logical continutity, though. The Clintons were seen as cosy with water polluters, union-busters, and NAFTA supporters: yuppie wallet-padders who was "anointed" frontrunner before a single primary vote had been cast beacuse they had more (corporate) money and charmed the campaign press, not classic liberals. The left favored Harkin, except for the proto-naderites who went for Gerry Brown.

Clinton was actually one of the least liberal of the bunch. That's part of why the Bush machine painted him and Hillary as such radical leftists: because if they weren't. Against Harkin or most of the others, Bush could have just pointed at his opponent as "just another liberal democrat" and re-used his '88 playbook. Clinton didn't have that liberal image on him, so the Bush team painted it on -- and painted it thick. Thus the "hate" projection system.

On the other side, this actually worked towards his advantage among liberals (and separated liberals from harder-line leftists), covering over things that may have caused problems, and creating an image that became the liberal "all my hopes" projection system.

Aguably, both are still operating today, but while liberals may idealize a bit, they're a whole lot closer to reality than the other side.

That's my take on it, and I'm sticking with it.

[Az]

14. This is why the left was caught blind

They never saw Clinton as their champion. The DLC had effectively silenced much of the left in the hopes of recooping losses after Reagan and Bush 1 had revitalized the right. Their tactic of playing to the center further enraged the right because they saw it as more of the moral inconsistancy they so hated.

[Karenina]

7. It's SO RIDICULOUS

that our current environs force you to belabour such an obvious point.
;-) :loveya: :toast:

Oh yeah, btw language DOES matter. When I was part of the ONLY GENERATION who could do the horizontal bop sans angst, SEX meant an act that could impregnate. Bjs need not apply. I SWEAR, It's TRUE!

[blindpig]

9. well, you might be right...

but I don't think most people operate on that level consciously. I believe many of our opposition were uptight shits during during the 60's & 70's and still resent sex&drugs&rock&roll. Others are apostates of sdrr seeking vindication. They hate our freedom!
Simplistic, sure.

[seabeyond]

10. very wise words

this is good. i enjoyed.

and to take this further, the left has their own areas they do this in. where there is the same searching for the not meeting the standards of what is presumed to be right living. that they try to force all to abide.

the gift of the right, theirs is so loud in the hypocrisy of their religion that it is clear to see what they are doing. the left isnt so clear. we can always come up with reasons and validations why we insist on resisting one from choices, because they arent clever enough to take care of self, not responsible enough, ergo we have to take care of them for them. yet it is the same, just the other side of the isle.

[info being]

12. I don't know what Left you're talking about

To me, Progressivism means shifting more power to people who are presumed able to make decisions for themsleves. Control must only be used when the action of one individual is too harful to another.

If people are clever enough to take care of themselves...then by all means let them. However, the fact remains that many people aren't and saying they are ignores the problem.

[callous taoboy]

11. Well put.

Except for the Defense of Marriage Act. Bill could've left that one for the current run of NAZIS.