The intense media focus on Hillary Clinton’s new book raised an issue that has been dormant for a while: the “Clinton haters.”
Several observers of the book made the point that these were the folks most alarmed by the favorable sales figures and celebrity status that Mrs. Clinton now enjoys; that they are haunted by the nightmare of Bill and Hillary returning to the White House.
Are there “Clinton haters” abroad in the land? I guess those who use the term are thinking of people like me. I don’t “hate” the Clintons, of course. But I do harbor a dislike for Bill — Hillary, less so — that is unique. I’ll admit to that. No other public figure elicits the same reaction in me, not even those prominent liberal Democrats who share Clinton’s views. When I see his face on the television screen, I reach for the remote faster than a hobo swiping a pie from the kitchen window in the old comic strips. I get a literal physical reaction in the pit of my stomach when I hear his voice. I once, in what I thought was a clever turn of a phrase, called it “Billimia.” Over the years, I have discovered that quite a few people share with me this revulsion for the man.
Why this intense reaction? Is it envy? That might be part of it, but if it is, it is a subconscious reaction, at least for me. I wouldn’t swap places with Bill for all the tea in China.
Then what is it? I would say that it is a feeling rooted in exasperation over the way the Clintons have pulled the wool over so many people’s eyes. I can’t think of any public figures in recent history who have been able to get away with covering up who they are the way the Clintons have. And I am not talking about the physical makeover — even though that has been considerable. No question: The high-priced tailors and hair stylists turned an awkward couple from Arkansas into a glamorous man- and woman-about-town.
No, I am talking about something else: the extent to which Bill and Hillary’s radical past has been erased from the nation’s memory bank. Let us not forget that the two of them were not just your run-of-the-mill peace protestors. They were part of the mobilization against the Viet Nam war that organized the protests, both here and abroad, where the Viet Cong flag was flown and chants of “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Min, the NLF is gonna win” filled the air.
Bill was a bearded and booted participant in those demonstrations. He was involved in marches against the war while studying in England on his Rhodes scholarship. To this day he has not answered in any detail what he was doing at those demonstrations, or about what was doing in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at about the same time. But a Jesuit who had taught Clinton at Georgetown knows what was going on. He defended Clinton’s reluctance to talk about that time in his life, commenting, “If he was candid about what he was doing in Eastern Europe, he would never be elected president.” ‘Nuff said. Bill was always a striver, even when a radical. I think it safe to say that he was out to prove to the other leftists of the time that he was more committed to the cause than the foot soldiers in the movement.
Hillary was comparably involved in the radical politics of the time. While at Yale Law School, she participated in a student movement to defend Black Panthers on trial for killing a police informer. Hillary’s senior college thesis is still kept under wraps at Wellsley. We can’t be sure why, of course, but the speculation is widespread that its new left Marxist slant would be devastatingly embarrassing for a woman looking to run for the presidency. If it does not contain such material, why do the authorities at Wellsley go to such great lengths to keep it from reporters? Their explanation that all student papers are kept confidential rings hollow. I doubt that George Bush would be protected as diligently from embarrassing statements he may have made as an undergraduate.
Recall how reporters dug up information about televangelist Pat Robertson and his wife cohabitating outside of marriage when they were college students. Robertson was forced to go before the cameras and talk of his “youthful mistakes,” at the very moment he was being critical of Clinton’s trysts with Monica Lewinsky. Those reporters never thought it relevant to probe Bill and Hillary about shared living quarters at Yale.
Is it my point that no antiwar activist of the 1960s should be considered a suitable candidate for high political office? No. Several are now in the Congress. But what the Clintons have done is manage to posture as mainstream liberal Democrats without having to answer questions about their youthful radicalism. Al Gore was once confronted with some embarrassingly anti-military statements he made as a young man. He laughed, shrugged and said, “I was young and stupid.” The issue never came up again. It was that simple. On the other hand, Paul Wellstone would speak with pride of his anti-war activism as a young man. The Clintons have never been required to tell us whether they see their radical days in the same light as Gore, or as Wellstone did. The press seems determined to save them from any embarrassment on this question.
But if the press has covered up for the Clintons, how did I find out about their radical past? Not from the mainstream media, the network news or the newsweeklies. That’s for sure. I learned of it from what Hillary called the “vast right wing conspiracy.” The dominant media looked the other way. That is why, to this day, there are otherwise intelligent and well informed people who know nothing about the Clintons’ counterculture days. I said “nothing.” I still meet people who buy completely into the line that these stories about the Clintons’ past are part of a hatchet job carried out by rightwing extremists.
I think this is what gets under the skin of the “Clinton haters.” They are angered by the deception. It reminds me of a night several years ago when I was visiting my mother in Queens, not far from Shea Stadium. My brother and I went out to get a pizza a nice new Italian restaurant in the neighborhood. We met one of my brother’s old friends, who was having a beer while waiting for his order.
“Hey, this is a nice place,” said my brother to his friend.
“Yeah, cost big bucks,” replied his old buddy. “You know who owns it?”
“Who?” I asked.
(I’ll make up a name.) “Vinnie Costa,” he answered. “You remember him?”
I didn’t, but my brother, who is sixteen years younger than I am, did.
“No, come one…you’re kidding me,” he said with a sardonic smile.
“I kid you not,” said his friend. “He took the money he made selling drugs, bought the place, refurbished it and now he’s a solid citizen. Sponsors Little League teams, you name it. Everyone thinks he’s a pillar of the community.”
I didn’t know what to say. “Vinny” got away with it. He profited from his shameful past, covered it up and went on to success. Now I am not saying that what the youthful Clintons did was comparable to drug dealing. But a friendly mainstream press enabled them to escape those elements in their past that would endanger their political careers. They “got away with it” too.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
