Hillary Derangement Syndrome

| | Comments (6)

I'd like to make a prediction. If Hillary Clinton becomes the next president of the U.S., I expect we're going to see a parallel to Bush Derangement Syndrome: Hillary Derangement Syndrome. (I'd call it Clinton Derangement Syndrome, except that's ambiguous.)

Anything that's bad will be attributed to her, whether she's responsible or not. Anything she says will be treated as uncharitably as possible, no matter how out-of-context it has to be taken. The consequences of her policies will be greatly exaggerated, and any other contributing factors to bad outcomes will be ignored. And what's worst about this is that the people who will be doing it will be mainly evangelical Christians.

I don't think we've ever seen a phenomenon quite like this until the current president. A lot of people who didn't like Bill Clinton said lots of nasty things about him, especially evangelical Christians who should have obeyed the Bible a little more carefully with regard to respecting those in governmental leadership under God. But I don't think it was anything like the kind of irrationality I've seen over the current president. Nonetheless, I think the standard has been set, and these things tend to cross party lines once control shifts to the other party. I would be very surprised if we don't see many of those who have been so upset at Bush Derangement Syndrome doing exactly the same thing with President Hillary Clinton, if it turns out she ends up holding that position.


That's why we need Ron Paul to run against her!!!

So how would that argument go? Nominate someone that would ensure that 80% of the voters would vote for Hillary, and then they wouldn't be able to complain because they voted for her? I don't think it would work, though, because I think that matchup would just decrease the already-pitiful voter turnout, and there would be plenty of people just not voting.

Oh, come on. This is nothing new. This term is whats new, and it represents the latest political weapon for one side to build a wall around things they don't want to hear. Using a term like "Bush derangement syndrome" is simply a way of trying to throw a blanket over all criticism including the valid in an attempt to paint it all as nonsense. Of course its going to happen to Hilary, just like it always happens to presidents. When you're the leader of the free world its no surprise that you become the scape-goat for problems that you're only indirectly responsible for. This is just another buzzword to use to deflect unwanted criticism.

Actually, I really do think the kind of negatives we see with George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton involve a kind of hatred that's much worse than I've seen with any other figure in my lifetime except those who have literally been awful people, e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is not a blanket response to all criticism. It's a legitimate observation about traits in some people to blame Bush for things he has nothing to do with and to call things bad when he does them that the speaker's favored politicians also do.

I agree with Jeremy. Like it or not, the standard has been set (lowered) by the actions of Bush's opponents over the last 7+ years. The temptation for Republicans to seek revenge by responding in kind to a Hillary presidency (remember - not all Republicans are Christians) will be overwhelming. Likewise, If Guilani is elected we will see a "Rudy Derangement Syndrome" or a "Thompson Derangement Syndrome" or ... well, you get the picture.

But I am far less worried about incivility in politics than by some candidates promising to "restore civility" in politics. Often those are code words for censorship and crackdowns on civil liberties. After all, their opponents are being "uncivil" by demonstrating against them. Totalitarian countries have "civil" political discourse in excess - as I recall, it is one of their main selling points.

If you want real civility in politics, try good governance.

While I definitely see your point with regard to the proposition that we succumbed to various derangement syndromes, I also think I'd have to question the assumption as an overarching interpretation.

After all, I think what you've got with Bush and Hillary are two very polarizing figures who are virtual caricatures in their own personnaes. Yes, the left blames Bush to irrational extremes, but let's remember that he lives unapologetically against mainstream claims against the negative aspects of his administration. And I think Hillary will be the same - only to the left. Her allegance to her special interest groups and socialization strategies will most likely be unwavering to about the same degree that Bush's neocon tactics and strategies have been.


Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04