I thought there was something about the Clintons that made people on the right crazy. At the time, the press reported this as some kind of generational thing. Clinton was the first president too young to have served during World War Two, and this was supposed to be a big deal. Other accounts focused on Clinton’s humble beginnings in Arkansas as a reason the snobs didn’t accept him in DC. A last explanation was that Clinton had some moral shortcomings (mainly with the ladies) that offended the morally upright. Whatever the cause or blend of causes, it is now clear that the crazy response to Clinton was at least partly due to the mere fact that he wasn’t a conservative Republican.
I think we can expect from now on that whenever a Democrat is elected president, that the far right will simply not accept it and will begin agitating for state’s rights. The second a Republican in elected president, they’ll fall mute. The pattern is established, and I don’t think it will change any time soon.
My state is leading the way, being the first state to pass something that will reject the health care bill. It’s expected to be signed by Bob McDonnell.
for Obama, it’s cause he’s Black. yeah yeah yeah..he’s a Democrat, but he’s BLACK. shy away from it if you want to, but you won’t convince me otherwise.
It’s partly because he’s black. Certainly here in WV that is a major reason.
But Hillary would be facing the same attacks on policy, with slightly different approaches to the personal attacks cause she’s got them lady parts and wears pant suits.
To be honest, I think you saw the beginnings of it when Carter was elected.
I have the same feeling you do, Steven. The seeds of this movement have been in the ground a long time. In many ways, I think it was also birthed in the 70’s. At least this iteration of it. The emergence of the religious right in the 70’s might well have been the genesis of this whole thing. While there was not an overt racial aspect to the religious right at that time, I think those involved would find much in common with the world view of today’s crazies. I remember much of the same anger and anti-government sentiment at that time, though much of it was grounded in the culture wars of that day. Battles which, by the way, are still being fought in many ways by today’s angry mobs. It is just a slighted different evolutionary branch on their ideological tree.
I remember how they went after Hillary and her plans for health care. They told her quite flatly to stay home and bake cookies.
And they did go after Bill Clinton the moment he was voted in. He couldn’t do anything right. The constant drumbeat was obvious then, and it’s obvious now. They cannot abide a Democrat as President, and black President is truly driving them mad.
They’ve been going nuts since JFK, at least.
I’d tend to follow political tendencies rather than Party names….because once upon a time it was the Republicans who were the Liberal/Progressive party and the Democrats the reactionary/conservatives…
That said, your run-down of Conservative fury and dissembling at the seating of a non-Conservative President is spot-on. Conservatives, exemplified by their Congressmen, want a President who, if not ‘part of the Club’, will ‘shut up and do as told’. When they don’t get the Mark they desire, they’ll either try to remove them (Andrew Johnson, FDR, Clinton), or carve away at the President’s term by undermining him or working around him (Grant, TR, LBJ, in general if not specifically).
There may be a cultural or pathological thing here: people believing they ought to be in charge versus people understanding they were elected to represent their state/district.
Neo-Feudalism trying to gain a foothold in American politics?
Agree with the general thrust of your remarks, but differ slightly on some historical points.
Andrew Johnson was attacked, rightly in my view, not by conservatives of the 1860s but from his left in the Repub Pty. It was the conservatives, the Dems and the conservative-moderate elements of the Repubs in the senate who kept him (barely) in power.
And on LBJ, he really shot himself in the foot — Vietnam, that totally unnecessary war — and was attacked as much from the left of his own party (starting the VN War) as from the Repub Right (not trying more to win the war).
LBJ in fact was probably the last Dem president who, except for his final (5th) year in office when VN really became unpopular, was given more consistently gentle treatment, and for a much longer time in office, by the D.C. political/press establishment. Both Carter and Clinton were attacked almost immediately.
Obama got, max, about 6 months before the naysaying began in the media Beltway and in earnest on the Right.
Good summary of the various reasons the Right and the DC establishment went after Clinton.
Similar ones I heard at the time: 1) He was the first Boomer prez, and most of the press being of roughly the same age, they didn’t have the natural tendency to respect a contemporary as they would an elder like Reagan or Poppy.
That said, I agree with those who note that it probably started no later than with the unlucky Carter, who really got the treatment from the DC Establishment of the time, while soon they would all do a 180 and fall on their knees before St Ronnie.