The Vilification of Hillary

At this point--and who knows what the national political situation will be by November 8--it looks quite certain that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. In spite of her probable election, however, Hillary is the target of considerable condemnation by most conservative Republicans as well as by some liberal Democrats.

Unconscious Misogyny?

Deprecation of political opponents is nothing new in presidential elections, of course. But as a (male) psychoanalyst wrote back in May (see here), there seems to be “extreme intensity” in the vilification of Hillary.

Peter Wolson, the author of the Huffington Post article just referenced, claims that there is “deep-seated misogyny” that is “manifested in the cultural discrimination against women worldwide.” The stronger the woman, the stronger that misogynistic discrimination becomes.

That seems to be a major reason Hillary is being vilified so much, and the same would possibly be true for any other woman strong enough to be the nominee for President by one of the major political parties.

(For another article along in same vein, I recommend “The Era of ‘The Bitch’ is Coming: A Hillary Clinton presidential victory promises to usher in a new age of public misogyny”; that August 17 article in The Atlantic is well worth reading.)

Misogyny is probably real and significant; however, it doesn’t adequately explain the extent of Hillary’s vilification.

"Hillary’s America"

Earlier this month I went to a theater (which I seldom do) to see the movie titled “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.” The vilification of Hillary is strongly evident in that full-length movie by Dinesh D’Souza, whose previous film, “2016: Obama’s America,” was the vilification of Barack Obama.

Both of D’Souza’s movies were based on books he had previously published. His book Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party was published In November 2015. It is highly acclaimed by conservative Republican: there are more than 525 “customer reviews” on Amazon.com, and 85% of those reviewers gave the book five stars, the maximum.

D’Souza’s book with the same title as his new movie was published the same week the movie debuted about a month ago. Already there are more than 400 customer reviews, and 81% of them are five-stars.

I have not read the book, but since it is basically the same as the movie, I heartily agree with the 10% who gave it only one star. I also agree with the review of the movie that appeared on RogerEbert.com. (Check that out here.) Even the conservative Christian Post has a rather negative article about D’Souza’s highly questionable film (see here). 

Guilt by Association

D’Souza’s attack on Hillary was partly through making her guilty by association. Much is made of her approval of Margaret Sanger’s activities and her being the recipient of the Sanger Award. (Early next month I plan to post a blog article about Sanger.)

There is also strong criticism of Hillary because of her association with Saul Alinsky. Just as the article “Hillary Haters’ Fixation on Saul Alinsky” says, “Forty-seven years after she graduated from Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton is still having to defend her senior thesis.”

If you think she should be criticized for her interest in and contact with Alinsky, please read the article linked above.

Hillary has been attacked on many matters that could be expected in a presidential campaign. But the persistent vilification of her seems unprecedented and extreme—and very unfair to the one who is most likely going to be the next POTUS.

Truth is the First Casualty

“The first casualty when war comes is truth.” Those words are attributed to Hiram Johnson in 1917. He was a U.S. Senator from California (1917-45) and was strongly opposed to the United States entering World War I.

Perhaps it can also be said that truth is the first casualty when there is a political convention. I say this partly because of my reflection upon last week’s Republican National Convention. Unfortunately, the same will probably also be true at the Democratic National Convention this week, although to a lesser degree I hope and pray.

Early in his acceptance speech the Republican nominee declared, “Here at our convention, there will be no lies.” But the next day a Huffington Post article had this headline: “Donald Trump Promises Not To Lie, Right Before Lying A Bunch Of Times.”

Was Trump really lying in his acceptance speech? Perhaps, but that depends partly on what one means by lying. If a lie is something one deliberately says in spite of knowing that it is false and with the intent of misleading other people, then Trump probably did lie about a number of things.

But he may well have thought that what he said was true, for he most likely didn’t look up all the facts and figures used in his speech. The fact-checkers did look them up, though, and many statements were found to be incorrect, misleading, and/or just plain false.

Truth, or the lack thereof, has been an issue with Donald Trump for a long time, as the fact-checkers have abundantly shown. The following chart indicates his and 19 other politicians’ untruthfulness/truthfulness. 

This chart was uploaded on imgur.com (see here) on June 7, but I have not been able to authenticate the accuracy of these figures. Neither have I been able to discover who Robert Mann is. (He may be, or perhaps is not, a journalism professor at LSU.)

It must also be noted that all falsehoods are not of the same seriousness, and this chart deals with only the quantity of the lies told, not with qualitative differences. Still . . . .

If you want to consider only the two presidential candidates, here are figures from a July 1 article in the Washington Post: 

Writing last Friday about the RNC, Jim Wallis averred that “the continual outright lies and vicious personal attacks this week have been extraordinary.”

One of those lies was told by Ted Cruz on July 20: “Our party was founded to defeat slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. We passed the Civil Rights Act, and fought to eliminate Jim Crow laws. Those were fights for freedom, and so is this,” he said.

This false claim that the Republican Party (as well as the Democratic Party) of today is the same as it was in Lincoln’s day is widespread. For example, on his July 22 radio show Rush Limbaugh declared, “The Democratic Party was the Party of the KKK—and it still is!”

(For an excellent explanation of the reversal of the two parties through the years, check out the article linked to here.)

Rush also highly recommended “Hillary’s America,” the new movie by Dinesh D’Souza that opened on July 22. D’Souza spoke at the Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting I attended in June, so I was not surprised to receive a FFC email last week with this headline: “D’Souza reveals the sordid truth about Hillary & the secret history of the Democratic Party.” 

But the “sordid truth” that D’Souza reveals is full of lies. Once again truth is a casualty. 

"2016"

Talk about a contrast! Last week I went to see the movie “2016: Obama’s America” on the same day the Democratic National Convention began. Both the movie and the convention centered on President Obama, but the evaluation of the same man was greatly different, to say the least.

“2016” is a documentary, or an infomercial, produced by Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative political commentator and author who (since 2010) is president of The King’s College in New York City. Born in Mumbai, India, D’Souza (b. 1961) came to the U.S. as an exchange student and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983. In the 1980s he was for a time a policy advisor for President Reagan.

D’Souza is the author of numerous books, his most recent being Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream (2012). That book is said to reveal “how President Obama's recent actions prove his anti-colonialist roots and predicts how much worse America will be if President Obama wins a second term.” D’Souza’s movie is based on his book.

“2016” is already the highest grossing conservative documentary of all time, and has just surpassed “An Inconvenient Truth” and is now in sixth place on the list of all documentaries. Widespread publicity helped to boost attendance.

For example, Sean Hannity strongly and repeatedly recommends it. (That was one main reason I was disinclined to go see it.) Hannity begins each segment of his radio broadcasts with a statement of his intention to make Obama a one-term President. He evidently thinks “2016” will help achieve that goal.

On the last day of the Democratic National Convention that climaxed with President Obama’s acceptance speech, I happened to see that day’s issue of USAToday. I was amazed to find a full page ad for “2016” in section A.

Last month I received an e-mail from a retired Baptist minister whom I have known since we moved to Liberty in 2005. He wrote that he and his wife “just got home from seeing the movie: ‘2016: Obama’s America.’ It makes no difference what your political views are the move is a MUST to see.”

One of my Thinking Friends also recommended the movie. When I told him I was disinclined to see it, he wrote back, “D’Souza has a similar background [to] Obama and this makes it even more effective. I felt he was fair to Obama and seemed to stay with facts and not cheap shots like both sides have been doing.”

Even though I was prejudiced against the movie, because of my friends’ recommendations and urging I decided to go see it at the local theater here in Liberty. When I left the theater, though, I was more convinced than ever that it was a piece of well-produced propaganda. There were some factual errors, but mostly my complaint is that the movie is filled with grossly misleading half-truths, deceptive insinuations, and highly speculative assertions.

If people are opposed to the President and his ideas or policies, so be it. People have a right to their own opinions. But I urge people to base their support for or rejection of political leaders on accurate knowledge of the facts, rational analysis of the issues, and clear-headed appraisal of those leaders’ political positions.
______  
[For a good review and factual analysis, see “‘2016: Obama’s America’ Fact-Check” here.]