Politics ain't beanbag: How Hillary Reflects Zimbabwe’s Mugabe

Editor's Note: I'm pleased to present what we hope will be the first of many "Voxant Guest Bloggers" today. Ed Grefe is a 40-year veteranb of grassroots politics and is recognized the world over as one of the best political strategists in the business. As the Senior Political Consultant at Aristotle International, Grefe travels the globe teaching politicians the fine art of reaching the people. For more than a decade, he's taught grassroots strategy and political management at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.

I first met Ed earlier this year and was immediately struck by his wit and intellect. In a world of non-stop political chatter on the 24-hour cable news outlets, Ed brings patience and experience to his take on the political news of the day. At my request, Ed graciously agreed to share his views of the current race for the Democratic presidential nomination. At Voxant, our mission is to bring the best information to the Internet. I can think of no better way to further that goal than to put Ed's unique take on politics on the Internet for the first time

- Evan McMorris-Santoro, Senior Editor

Reading about Robert Mugabe’s unwillingness to acknowledge election results and give up power and all its trappings – the lavish mansions and enormous bank accounts reported on in the media – one comes to see some analogies with the Clintons who understand what power can do if you have it. Since neither has worked much in the private sector one can only assume that the Clinton fortune we now know about is the direct result of their political power.

True the United States is not Zimbabwe, and Hillary does not have a police force holding the opposition in check. But the Clinton’s thirst for power and Hillary’s sense of entitlement is surely no different from most who seek to gain and/or hold onto power they assume to be rightfully theirs. Add to the mix the seeming lack of understanding by the Obama folks two lessons that may undermine their campaign and his turn for the worse appears more probable even without the assistance of Jeremiah Wright.

The first is the historical confrontations reminiscent of the 1960s that seem to be playing out in this campaign. The second is that at the end of the day in any political system, “politics ain’t beanbag.”.

What then makes the Hillary and Obama campaigns – and the two candidates – different? Several thoughts come to mind as one looks first at the two campaigns and the two candidates from a historical perspective and next at the perspective of politics that both Clintons bring to politics.

David Brooks has written an excellent column summarizing the two Democratic Parties. He notes one is younger, better educated, more affluent; the other older, less educated and less affluent. He says this is a relatively new finding. Yet perceiving the differences between what has been termed the “liberal” wing of the Democratic Party and the “lunch bucket” wing is not all that new, certainly not if one has spent any time analyzing the demographics and even psychographics of the audience that prefers Letterman to Leno, the latter being the preferred comic of the “lunch bucket” crowd.

What amazes Brooks – and the rest of us – is the hold Hillary seems to have on the “lunch bucket” crowd. She is certainly as well educated (Yale) as Obama (Harvard). Her climb up the ladder of success has been somewhat – though in no way exactly – similar. And their platforms appear to be roughly mirror-images of each other.

But what seems to be at work here is that the two campaigns and the two candidates are also re-playing the classic split first in evidence in the 1960s between the Civil Rights Movement and the Feminist Movement. Those of us present and involved remember the clashes between black women and white women.

The black community has often been termed a largely matriarchal society. Thus black women were saying both publicly and privately to white women: “Sister ain’t no way I am going to let you take the job that my man should have.” Black women often saw the challenge by white women for equality as a way of keeping black men down, thereby perpetuating a matriarchal life the black women were seeking to change by opening up economic opportunities for their men.

That clash is in evidence today. Older women support Hillary because they remember the sting of being relegated to the clerical pool. Younger women do not know of the struggle to make it first to the voting booth and then the board room except as a historical reference in their studies. Black women still see white women pushing ahead of their men – and Hillary represents the extreme, especially given the fact that for all their alleged interest in helping blacks, the Clintons single-handedly destroyed the fabric by which poor – read “black” – could survive in our society in order to get the “lunch bucket” folks to rally behind Bill in the mistaken belief that the welfare system in place helped only black people. 

Which gets us to the second point – the Clintons are essentially amoral when it comes to politics. They understand that winning isn’t just everything, it is the only thing, They subscribe to the notion that coming in second counts only in horse shoes and hand grenades, And they will do anything to win because at the end of the day what separates the two candidates in the notion that one is playing at politics believing there should be some rules of decorum while the other recognizes that politics is a blood sport, and that it in no way represents bean bag.

Clinton claims she is toughening up Obama to deal with the Republicans. Such a courtesy none of us who have worked in campaigns believes. She knows that attack campaigns have two goals: one, to destroy the opponent; and/two, to make certain that those voters easily turned off by a negative campaign do not, in fact, vote as their vote is not a certainty for the attacker. If I do not know for certain you are going to vote for me I do not want you anywhere near the polls on Election Day. Her goal is to make certain that if she does not win, the Democrats do not win.

People appeal to the Party leaders to ask her to get out of the race. They have no power over her. The only people who could get her to abandon her quest are people like Gloria Steinem or Eleanor Smeal. That will not happen because they lead the Feminist Movement which has but one interest: achieving power over any man at any price.

Short of a shift in strategy one wonders if Obama can secure the nomination or even if he secures it, whether the divisiveness engendered by Hillary will not so damage him that McCain is propelled into the White House. The Democrats may suffer at the polls but when power corrupts it can at times do so absolutely. Witness those like Mugabe whose obscene desire for power reminds this observer of those whose only interest in self aggrandizement – not too far off the mark as one observes the Clintons.

Comments

[Mark Burtschi]

Interesting.

[Thrasybulus]

Professor Grefe makes a couple of interesting observations about the Democratic race, before unveiling his unique brand of deeply misinformed political economy. I say unique, because as a self-proclaimed Republican, Professor Grefe's ignorance is particularly puzzling...

He writes:

" Black women still see white women pushing ahead of their men – and Hillary represents the extreme, especially given the fact that for all their alleged interest in helping blacks, the Clintons single-handedly destroyed the fabric by which poor – read “black” – could survive in our society in order to get the “lunch bucket” folks to rally behind Bill in the mistaken belief that the welfare system in place helped only black people"

Mr. Grefe is referring to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act (H.R. 3734) designed and passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

Mr. Grefe offers the standard collectivist platitude that the act "destroyed the fabric by which poor – read “black” people – could survive in our society"

Of course, as any amateur economist will tell you, the Welfare Reform Act was monumental in dramatically cutting poverty rates by--among other things--giving the incentive to able-body and able-mind poor people of all races to find work. Some call that empowerment. Others call that the sin of capitalism.

The Welfare Reform Act destroyed--who are we kidding, slighly injured--the socialist fabric that cultivates the virtue of "equal misery for all".

If Mr. Grefe wanted to write an essay on the Clintons' ruthlessness, it would have behooved him to omit the one rare piece of evidence that points to Bill Clinton's compassion.

The Welfare Reform Act was an unqualified success, and it pains me to see "better educated, more affluent" people argue otherwise.