I was talking politics with a Republican friend of mine last night, and he mentioned how much he hates Hillary Clinton. I asked him why he hates her so much, and he struggled a bit before coming up with a response. He said it was because the Clintons are dishonest people. I probed a bit, inquiring how she was dishonest. I didn't get a response. My friend has what I call Unexplainable Hillary Aversion (UHA). It's an interesting syndrome: hating someone, but not being able to remember why.
Michael Gerson, Bush's former speech writer, has the same case of UHA as my Republican friend. He wrote in the Washington Post today:
"[T]here are three words that cause nearly every Republican to forget their differences and join hands in common purpose: President Hillary Clinton.
This is undeniably true. In the Republican debate last night, the word "Hillary" was used pejoratively numerous times (I didn't bother counting), but there was not a single mention of either Barack Obama, who has a more progressive legislative record, or John Edwards, who arguably offers the most progressive vision for the future. What is clear is that it is not Hillary Clinton's agenda or ideology that Republicans find so detestable. It is Hillary Clinton herself.
Of course, Republicans would look like vindictive little children if they held an unjustifiable 15-year grudge. Gerson, while acknowledging that the extent of the animus towards Mrs. Clinton is probably not warranted, claims that her position on abortion is "genuinely radical." According to ontheissues.org, Clinton has been rated 100% by NARAL, but expressed support for parental notification laws in 1997. The New York Times reported that in 2007, public opinion polls show that 34% of Americans favor making abortion generally available. 41% favor making abortion available, but with more restrictions that what currently exist. 23% favor outlawing abortion. If Clinton is part of the 34% and Gerson and the rest of the religious right is part of the 23%, I question exactly who is "genuinely radical" here.
Gerson then provides three reasons why Clinton is the "weakest, most divisive Democrat in the race":
First, she is a living symbol of the culture wars of the 1990s and will rally the Republican base like no other candidate.
--snip--
Second, Clinton is the candidate who most muddles the Democratic message of change.
--snip--
Third, the Clintons practice a form of politics without honor.
Gerson offers nothing to back up these assertions. After claiming that Clinton is a "living symbol of the culture wars of the 1990s," he says that "it is always easier to remind voters than to instruct them." These seems to be Gerson's entire modus operandi: if you just drill vague talking points into the heads of Republican voters, you don't have to worry about facts.
The list following Hillary's first "problem" reads more like a cheap vendetta against her husband than an explanation of why Republicans should dislike his wife. Of the twelve items in the list, five involve the former president's alleged sexual escapades. He mentions Kathleen Willey. I highly doubt that many people even remember who Kathleen Willey is, and Gerson doesn't bother to remind us. Kathleen Willey claimed in 1998 that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton in 1993. I won't bore you with the details, but let's just say that Ms. Willey has had severe difficulties with the truth. Regardless, what any of it has to do with Hillary Clinton is not explained by Gerson. The list also makes mentions of Hillary's desire to be seen as a strong, independent woman. If Republicans are still clamoring for an era in which women played the role of humble servant, that is their problem, not Clinton's. Gerson says that for conservatives, the list is a "trumpet call to old battles." In this battle of wits, conservatives are clearly entering the fight unarmed.
Gerson then argues that Clinton is the anti-change candidate, not only amongst the Democrats, but amongst all the potential nominees. He says that Clinton "carries the heaviest burden of the past." Gerson had just spent the previous paragraphs loading onto her shoulders items from the past that either no reasonable person should care about anymore, or things that had nothing to do with her in the first place. Gerson admits that 77% of America believes the country is on the wrong path, and yet Hillary Clinton somehow bears a heavier burden from the past than the party which got us to this dismal point in the first place.
Finally, I almost laughed out loud when Gerson wrote that the Clintons practice a "form of politics without honor." And I just about fell out of my chair when he referenced Robo-calls in Nevada that used the name "Barack Hussein Obama." Hang on a minute. Wasn't the derisive use of Obama's name a Republican tactic that was used over and over and over and over again? If you want to see politics without honor, the opposition to Andrew Jackson in the 1828 presidential race claimed Jackson was a murderer and a cannibal and that his wife was a prostitute. In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were somehow able to convince the American public that a Vietnam War veteran was less patriotic than a draft-dodger.
There are many other dubious statements in Gerson's article. But he makes it clear that Republicans desperately need an enemy. And that doesn't just apply to presidential races. Republicans need an enemy in every aspect of life. That Republicans should dislike Democrats is understandable: the two parties have extremely different perspectives on policy issues. But the targeting of Hillary Clinton by Republicans has become instinctual to the point of being dogmatic. UHA (remember, that's Unexplainable Hillary Aversion) may serve to rally the Republican base, but it also represents the pettiness of a party desperate to maintain some semblance of relevance.