| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. |
| |
Prewriting Notes |
|
<
< | Possible Topics:
What does Hillary Clinton mean when she claims to be the most experienced? Is she sending subliminal signals to white voters regarding her race? Is she attempting to emasculate Obama, in the tradition of "boy"?
Is the rejection of McCain by conservative figureheads actually an attept to make him more palatable to the center, thus making him more electable or are they actually just being honest and, therefore, are either very very far right, disingenuous about their own politics, or confused about McCain's record?
Why did the US incarceration rate begin its precipitous increase directly following the Warren court, despite that courts general expanstion of the rights of the accused? (seems like it would take way more than 1000 words).
Is the structure of law school designed to ease one into a misrable future?
The criminal trial/criminal justice system as a means for controling radicals.
-- AdamCarlis - 07 Feb 2008
Clinton Is White |
| | 1. Her experience is weak experience. While she is older (14 years), the only real political experience she has had is her time in the Senate (4 more years than Obama) and her time as first lady of Arkansas (comparable to his time is state legislature) and of the United States (where her major policy initiative failed). Could one reasonably argue that 4 extra years in the senate somehow makes someone a better president?
- Even during her time as first lady, she didn't hold security clearance, didn't receive Bill's daily intelligence briefings, and wasn't a major player (or even really a player) in any foreign affairs issue.
- When she speaks of 35 years of experience, half of that was spent as a lawyer for the major establishment law firm in Arkansas where she defendent folks like WalMart? and Tyson Foods - hardly the experience she is trying to tout on the campaign trail.
|
| | Introduction |
|
<
< | Hillary Clinton makes both an “experience” argument (“Ready on Day One”) and a “change” argument (“Working for Change; Working for You”) to broaden her appeal and bring different groups into her camp. “Change” highlights her future status as the first female president and reminds us the ensuing departure from the politics of George Bush, thus exciting liberals, women and the democratic machine. Hillary’s “Experience” is a major issue for the over 65 crowd and working class white male voters (the conservative wing of the Democratic Party). |
>
> | Hillary Clinton targets potential voters by positioning herself as the most experienced candidate in the race (“Ready on Day One”). This issue is central to her popularity with the over 65 crowd and working class white male voters (the conservative wing of the Democratic Party). |
| | |
|
<
< | Unlike the “change” argument, her “experience” argument, when taken at face value, is a myth that fails to live up to the rhetoric. When she says “experience,” she is speaking in code, attempting to reassure conservative Democrats that traditions are safe. It is a conservative argument designed to prey upon hidden prejudices. In this essay I will attempt to show how that argument works |
>
> | Unlike her equally ubiquitous “change” slogans, her “experience” argument, when taken at face value, fails to live up to the rhetoric. When Mrs. Clinton says “experience,” she is actually speaking in code – attempting to reassure conservative Democrats that tradition is safe. It’s an argument designed to prey upon hidden prejudices. In this essay I will attempt to show how that argument works. |
| |
|
|
<
< | Hillary’s Experience is Weak |
>
> | The Experience Argument |
| | Much of it Outside of Politics
Private Sector Experience is as a Corporate Attorney |
|
<
< | Hillary’s experience fails to live up to her hype. Her “35 years of change” includes 15 years working as a corporate lawyer in Arkansas defending companies like WalMart? and Tyson’s Chicken. Moral judgments aside, no reasonable person would classify her legal career as change-oriented. |
>
> | Hillary’s experience buckles under scrutiny. Her “35 years of change” include 15 years working as a corporate lawyer in Arkansas defending companies like WalMart and Tyson’s Chicken. Moral judgments aside, no reasonable person would classify her legal career as change-oriented nor did it provide executive experience. |
| | Similar in Kind and Quality to Obama |
|
<
< | Clinton the First Lady v. Obama state Senator |
>
> | Clinton the First Lady |
| | |
|
<
< | Her public service career is equally suspect. Twenty years as first lady (in Arkansas and in the White House) gives one insight into what an executive does on a daily basis, how to successfully govern, and what the motions of governing look like. However, claiming such knowledge makes one a skilled executive is tantamount to claiming that a sports reporter becomes a better hitter after covering the Red Sox or a historian, armed with a complete record of the Kennedy White House would be skilled at negotiating an end to a nuclear missile crisis. Observing and doing are two very different things and, during her years as first lady, Hillary did not do much. Her most important attempt at acting like an executive failed, resulting in our current health care crisis. |
>
> | Her public service career is equally suspect. Twenty years as first lady (in Arkansas and in the White House) gave her insight into the daily life of an executive. However, claiming that experience makes her a skilled executive is tantamount to claiming that a sports reporter becomes a better hitter after covering the Red Sox or a historian, armed with a complete record of the Kennedy White House would be skilled at negotiating an end to a nuclear missile crisis. Observing and doing are two very different things and, during her years as first lady, Hillary did not do much. In fact, her most important attempt at acting like an executive failed, resulting in our current health care crisis. |
| | |
|
<
< | Clinton the Legislator v. Obama the Legislator |
>
> | Clinton the Legislator |
| | |
|
<
< | After leaving her husband’s shadow, her time in the Senate has been similarly uneventful. There are no major legislative accomplishments to speak of and many of the stances she has taken (for example, supporting the War against Iraq and its continued funding) have proven unpopular. Absent leadership on any major congressional issues, it is hard to see why spending for more years in the Senate than has Mr. Obama amounts to greater preparation for the presidency. When Hillary speaks of “experience,” she is not inviting an analysis of her record. Instead of referring to a proud history of leadership and legislative accomplishments, she is directing us to the prejudices that buttress her “experience” argument. |
>
> | After leaving her husband’s shadow, Mrs. Clinton’s time in the Senate has been similarly unremarkable. She has no major legislative accomplishments to speak of and her vote on the key issue of the past 8 years, authorizing the use of force against Iraq, has proven unpopular. Absent leadership on any major bill, it is hard to see why having spend four additional years the Senate makes her more prepared than Mr. Obama for the presidency. This indicates that, when Hillary speaks of “experience,” she is not inviting an analysis of her record. Instead of referring to a proud history of leadership and legislative accomplishments, she is directing us to the prejudices that buttress her “experience” argument. |
| | Given the Weakness of Her Experience, there Must be More to the Message |
|
<
< | Raising the Age Issue (with racial undertones)
Mrs. Clinton is nearly 20 years older than Mr. Obama. The generation gap between the two candidates is mirrored in their supporters. Perhaps what she hopes to highlight, in order to sure up her senior base, is Mr. Obama’s relative youth. By asserting her “experience” she is actually asserting to those voters over 55 that she is one of them and Mr. Obama is a precocious child not quite ready for a seat at the adult table. |
>
> | Raising the Age Issue |
| | |
|
<
< | This is a dangerous tactic; one that backfired when used against John Kennedy Jr. and Bill Clinton (who, like Obama, was 47 when he ran for president). Given the Democratic Party’s pride in JFK and Bill Clinton, not to mention her own reliance on Mr. Clinton’s success as president, it would be both foolish and disingenuous for Mrs. Clinton to raise the age issue directly. Doing so in a coded fashion; however, offers all the benefits without any of the risk.
However, if the age argument couldn’t defeat the great Democrats of the past, why would Hillary use it today? The difference is Mr. Obama’s race. Historically, white supremacy has used words like “son” and “boy” in order to emasculate and infantilize black men in an attempt to neutralize their growing power. While Ms. Clinton can’t directly campaign by positioning Mr. Obama as a child (Mr. Clinton has referred to him as a “kid”), she is able to conjure that image up in the minds – or at least the subconscious – of those who hear her “experience” argument. It is a subliminal cue to voters to be wary; likely one most of us don’t even recognize until it has invaded our subconscious. |
>
> | Mrs. Clinton is nearly 20 years older than Mr. Obama. The generation gap between the two candidates is mirrored by their supporters. Perhaps what she hopes to highlight, in order to sure up her senior base, is Mr. Obama’s relative youth. By asserting her “experience,” she may actually be asserting to those voters over 55 that she is one of them and Mr. Obama is a precocious child not quite ready for a seat at the adult table. |
| | |
|
>
> | This is a dangerous tactic; one that backfired when used against John F. Kennedy Jr. and Bill Clinton (who, like Obama, was 47 during his presidential campaign). Given the Democratic Party’s pride in JFK and Mr. Clinton, not to mention Mrs. Clinton’s reliance on her husband’s success in office, it would be both foolish and disingenuous to raise the age issue directly. Doing so in a coded fashion; however, offers all the benefits without any of the risk. It allows her to point out Mr. Obama’s youth without risking additional comparisons to two of the most popular democrats in history. |
| | Raising the Race Issue |
|
>
> | However, if the age argument couldn’t defeat the great Democrats of the past, why would Hillary use it today? The difference is Mr. Obama’s race. Historically, white supremacy has used words like “son” and “boy” in order to emasculate and infantilize black men in an attempt to neutralize their growing power. While Ms. Clinton can’t directly campaign by positioning Mr. Obama as a child (Mr. Clinton has referred to him as a “kid”), she is able to conjure that image in the minds of those who hear her “experience” argument. It is a subliminal cue to voters to be wary; one most of us don’t recognize until it has invaded our subconscious. |
| | If Mrs. Clinton’s “experience” argument is attempting to tap into an undercurrent of racism in America, it is not the only weapon in her arsenal. As Mark Penn spoke about Obama’s past drug use, other surrogates referred to him as “the black candidate” in what looked like a coordinated effort to caricature Mr. Obama as the stereotypical urban, black, drug abuser. After a victory in the South Carolina primary, Mr. Clinton publicly compared Obama’s campaign to that of Jesse Jackson, an analogy that misses on every issue except race. During the recent debate, Hillary argued that immigrants were displacing American workers. She then offered confirmation of her pollster’s false claim that Latino voters have “not shown a lot of willingness . . . to support black candidates.” These subtle hints are coming together to form the background music of the Clinton campaign and make it easier for voters (at least subconsciously) to make the leap from “experience” to “white.” |
|
>
> | Conclusion
This results in voters across the country claiming to support her based on her experience, but who are unable to articulate which of her experience has prepared her for the presidency. They have been bamboozled into thinking they are voting based on experience, when in reality they are voting based on age or race. Gone are the days where segregationist Democrats loudly declare their racist ambitions from the steps of the statehouse. Today, the same irrational fear is being stirred up in a more secretive and perhaps more palatable way. The goals are the same: using the conservative wing of the Democratic Party to prevent change. Despite the party split, Harry Truman won the election of 1948 and history looks at the Dixiecrat movement with contempt. Perhaps the results will be the same this time around. |
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |