Introducing political leaders and their rabid supporters to basic communication skills

Secretary Clinton Meets With Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on Dec. 2, 2011, State Department photo, public domain. Although Hillary's job approval as secretary of state is 66%, she continues to be targeted online by rabid anonymous attackers.

In Feb. 2008, Dr. Stanley Fish, Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, addressed Hillary-hating in his NY Times column, “Think Again.” In his next column, he replied to the responses he received from readers:

The responses to my column on Hillary Clinton-hating have been both voluminous (the largest number in the brief history of “Think Again”) and fascinating. The majority of posters agreed with the characterization of the attacks on Senator Clinton as vicious and irrational, but in not a few posts the repudiation of Hillary-hatred is followed by more of the same. Lisa (No. 17) nicely exemplifies the pattern. She begins by saying “I agree that there is a rabid nature in the manner in which numerous conservative groups attack Hillary Clinton,”, but in the very next sentence she declares that “most of Hillary’s reputation is well earned” and then she spends nine paragraphs being rabid. A significant minority of posters skipped the ritual disavowal of hatred and went straight to the task of adding to it.

It seems that Hillary’s recent successes as America’s most admired woman, the most popular politician in the nation, and a 66% job approval as secretary of state – compared to Obama’s declining poll numbers - have incited more of the “vicious, irrational attacks,” noted by Dr. Fish in 08.

Hillary’s attackers at the Huffington Post, for example, stalk every mention of her on that huge website and even go to the Style page to spew their hateful sexist comments. When called to account, the haters defend their right to free speech, apparently having never realized that our constitution does not guarantee the right to slander those with whom one disagrees.

If there’s any hope for a more civil society, it lies with the efforts of today’s parents to teach their children mutually respectful communication skills, which are not to be discarded when posting anonymously at an online message board at websites like the Huffington Post.  

Julie Costa, volunteer manager for Global Volunteers, is wisely training her two young sons in the art of communication by giving each of them a green card and a blue card:

The Green Card

There's something I need to talk to you about. It’s super hard for me to bring this up to you, but I feel it’s important. While you’re holding this card, I’m asking you to really listen. When I take the card back from you, I’m ready for you to respond.

The Blue Card

I’m handing you this blue card because our conversation has turned ugly. When this card is presented, we are to take a break for five minutes to cool off. We may postpone this conversation for another time, but we agree the conversation will continue when we can speak more calmly about this topic. This card may be presented more than one time in a conversation.

Based on the steady decline of civil communication in our culture since 9/11 and the behavior of our dysfunctional congress the past year, it might be a good idea to give each of our elected officials the Costa family’s green card and blue card and provide them an introductory seminar on mutually respectful communication skills. Perhaps they could, in turn, serve as role models for their crazed supporters on both the left and the right?

Sexism and Misogyny Fuel the Rants of Hillary-Haters

Stanley Fish’s post at Think Again (NY Times) this morning is a bracing read for those of us who have been struggling against the continuous onslaught of sexism and misogyny directed against Hillary Clinton since the day she announced her candidacy. And make no mistake, much of the Hillary-hatred is fueled by the zeal of Obama supporters for the one they’ve evidently been waiting for.

In today’s post, Fish replies to responses to his previous column on Hillary hating:

“The responses to my column on Hillary Clinton-hating have been both voluminous (the largest number in the brief history of “Think Again”) and fascinating. The majority of posters agreed with the characterization of the attacks on Senator Clinton as vicious and irrational, but in not a few posts the repudiation of Hillary-hatred is followed by more of the same. Lisa (No. 17) nicely exemplifies the pattern. She begins by saying “I agree that there is a rabid nature in the manner in which numerous conservative groups attack Hillary Clinton,”, but in the very next sentence she declares that “most of Hillary’s reputation is well earned” and then she spends nine paragraphs being rabid. A significant minority of posters skipped the ritual disavowal of hatred and went straight to the task of adding to it.

“These Clintonphobes said things like “there’s nothing to like about her”(394) and wrote at length about her clothing, her voice, her laugh, her arrogance, her “countless plastic surgeries” (an inference it would seem from the fact that at 60 she still looks good), her insincerity, her stridency, her ambition, her love of power, and her husband. In their view, the hatred they expressed was not irrational at all, but was provoked by a record of crimes and character flaws they are happy to rehearse. Their mirror image on the left objected to my saying that President Bush fills the same role for liberals that Clinton fills for her detractors. No, no came the protest. However free-floating hatred of Clinton may be, hatred of Bush is firmly grounded in the record of a disastrous presidency that has left us at war, in debt, and in bad odor throughout the world. The two groups differed only in the bad qualities they attributed to their nemesis. Bush haters derided him as stupid. Clinton haters complained that she is too smart (the word “brilliant” is used as a pejorative), seems to know it all, and makes those who hear her speak feel they are less intelligent than she is.”

As I recall, Fish didn’t name the Hillary hating in his earlier column as sexism or misogyny, but this time around he takes sexism into account:

“Comments like these would seem to lend support to the view (voiced by many respondents) that sexism is what ultimately motivates the Clinton bashers. “A woman who doesn’t apologize for who she is. What’s not to hate?” (79). “Any woman who is anything more than a wallflower will always be attacked” (105). “People just can’t tolerate a woman in power” (111). “Why not get right to heart of the matter? It’s sexism. Most women on this planet face it every day” (168). If so, they face it from women as well as from men, at least on the evidence provided here. Carol Maloney (158) reports that many of her intelligent women friends are unable “to discuss Hillary in a logical manner.” Kat (23) wonders why “women seem to be on the Hillary hatred bandwagon.” Carol (359) says “What I find most disturbing is the amount of hatred spewed at Hillary by those who are so much like her … It is very odd. Is it really self-hate?

“One might ask, can it really be sexism if it is women who are practicing it? Sure it can. If sexism is defined as the conviction that women are unsuited by gender to perform certain tasks or hold certain positions, that conviction is as available to women as it is to men. Still, sexism doesn’t seem an adequate explanation of the Hillary-hating phenomenon if only because so much of the venom in the comments is directed at the Clintons as a team. The idea is that nothing but evil can emanate from them; they are a moral blot on the nation’s escutcheon, a canker-sore on the body politic, and they must be removed (perhaps by any means necessary). No doubt sexism is a component of such sentiments–a number of women respondents accused her of riding on her husband’s coat-tails and lambasted her for not leaving him–but sexism doesn’t really account for an anger that sometimes borders on the homicidal.”

Homicidal? Well, yes, what sentient being could ignore the rage manifest in the comments of hundreds of Obama supporters swarming the internet 24/7? In response to Fish’s contention that sexism is an inadequate explanation for the hatred directed at both Clintons, more needs to be said.

In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire, Chris Matthews was forced to apologize to her for his sleazy on-the-air comments. In addition, many in the media were forced to eat crow for having been eager to write Clinton off based on poll numbers. As if looking for another target, the day after the New Hampshire results were confirmed, the media turned its wrath on Bill Clinton and soon began attacking the Clintons as a couple.

I’m also a little disappointed that Fish fails to mention the contradiction I addressed in yesterday’s post at Katalusis between Obama’s image as a political messiah and the behavior of his Hillary-bashing followers. However, Fish does describe how Obama panders to the obvious vilification of Clinton by his numerous supporters in the media (from both the left and the right) and his zealous fans in cyberspace; I urge you to read more of Fish’s post at Think Again in today’s NY Times.

Note: According to his bio, “Stanley Fish is the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has also taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins and Duke University. He is the author of 10 books. His new book on higher education, "Save the World On Your Own Time," will be published in 2008.”