Conspiracy Theories As Folk Art: Senator Clinton Edition
[I'm just a bit under the (spring-like) weather, decompressing from a dynamic winter quarter, and catching up with my family. And under those circumstances I thought I'd indulge one of my non-sexual interests: inventing witless, substance-free, but internally consistent conspiracy theories. Warning: This post is almost exclusively about current American Politics and couched in the formal language of American-style conspiracy theorizing. That said... --fl]
The completely sensible, level-headed Kevin Drum of the wonderful The Washington Monthly creates a great opportunity by complaining about a curmudgenly post by Matthew Yglesias...
Hillary's chances are slim and maybe it's time to withdraw. But how do we hop from there to an out-of-the-blue factual assertion that Hillary would just as soon see Obama lose in November? That's crazy. There's just no evidence that anyone in the Clinton campaign actually thinks this way. It's like the 90s all over again and it's driving me nuts.
Amateurs I tell ya! *If* someone really just wanted to enjoy a nice fat conspiracy theory they'd knit together a nice scenario where Senator Clinton, seeing the writing on the wall, continues to undercut Senator Obama on issues, especially, of foreign policy inexperience, skin color, class, and religion right up till... Senator McCain nominates her to be his running mate in a "maverick" twist on last cycle's Kerry -> McCain "unity" story. [**]
Such a move would thrill: journalists, disappointed Bloomberg "centerist party" backers, embarrassed-to-admit-it racists, neo-conservatives of the Joe Lieberman stripe, paleo-feminists, immigration-reform folks, the Clintons, and, of course, the Clinton's pollster Mark Penn.
- Currently marginalized “Centerists” would get their dream ticket.
- Uncomfortable “Bradley-effect” Democratics would be relieved to have a reason not to vote for a person of color.
- Joe Leiberman / Jamie Kirchick types would obviously prefer someone who lacks foreign-policy self-confidence and therefore acts excessively hawkish in a position of influence instead of someone confident enough to... eww!... consider diplomacy.
- Ferarro-style paleo-feminists (though not younger, politically progressive feminists) would prefer another chance at a-woman-any-woman in the #2 spot over no chance at all.
- A number of immigration reform folks evidently hope (as Mickey Kaus and other opponents fear) that a combination of McCain and Democrats in the House and Senate probably offers the best policy outcome.
- The Clintons would be thrilled, of course since not only could they have almost free, Cheney-style reign in the power vacuum left by McCain’s clueless indifference to domestic policy, but in actuarial terms chances would be very good that she’d ascend to the Oval Office sometime *before* 2012.
- Oh yeah, and finally Mark Penn would be thrilled because his billing and employee oversight would be streamlined. So see? Plenty of ammunition for conspiracists!
That's not to say Clinton is up to any such thing but it is to say that *if* Yglesias is just spinning conspiracies for the fun of it he's not putting very much effort into it.
[** Nevermind that votes gained from the proposed new coalition probably wouldn’t offset those lost by the hard-core Reds. Why hold this conspiracy to any higher standards than any other? --fl]
This is so scary true. I know that this is of course not what Clinton is hopefully trying to do, but if she was... Well if she was then she is a doing a fine job of undermining Obama and setting herself up for a VP run, I guess. Just following your conspiracy theory along as it is fun.
[No, of course not! And I'm pretty sure if the stakes weren't so high, and if people weren't *so* tired of the last eight years (which would include the havock wrought by what became the macho/psychotic Nader campaign) then *every* threat wouldn't seem so triggering and everyone could be pretty pretty collegial about it. As it is, though.... Thanks, BR. --fl]
It's an interesting bit of paranoia, but I think there's one flaw:
Republicans hate Hillary. From old Bill Clinton administration conspiracy theories, to constant appraisals of how she's too feminine/not feminine enough, to the way she'd treat health care and gun control, to the very way she talks, I think most Republicans can't stand her. Having her on the ticket would strengthen McCain's appeal in groups like the ones you bullet-pointed, but the Republican base would be disgusted right out of the voting booths.
Basically, there's no way the party would let McCain do that.
[Oh Holly how could you *question* my conspiracy theory? :-) I mean, just like an entry in a liar's competition isn't exactly going to win if it's *true,* it's a formal requirement of conspiracy theories that it has to have at least one factual or logical hole big enough to hide Rosewell, New Mexico, in. So the fact that the party would never go along isn't a flaw, it's a feature! And besides, they only *want* you to believe they hate Clinton. :-) --fl]
The great thing about conspiracy theories is that they spawn more of them. And since I agree with Holly but your train of thought is just way too fun to abandon, I can imagine a scenario where not just the Clintons but the whole DLC is involved. (The more complicated the conspiracy, the better the theory, right?)
So, one of two things happens: 1) Either Clinton destroys the Obama candidacy through scorched-earth tactics and seizes the nomination, or 2) Obama prevails and McCain nominates Lieberman as his veep. Either way, the DLC keeps its craven claws latched firmly onto power and destroys the insurgent candidate who won't kowtow to their centrist "principles."
I'm starting to believe my own theory so I'll just STFU now.