--CGE
Dennis Perrin wrote:
> Don't get too comfy, Max, or Katha Pollitt will gum your knees.
>
> As I put it last June:
>
> "But I was somewhat thrown by Katha Pollitt's take in the recent Nation,
> though I really shouldn't have been. She too is feeling all historical and
> stuff, telling her readers regarding Hillary:
>
> "'Because she normalized the concept of a woman running for President, she
> made it easier for women to run for every office, including the White House.
> That is one reason women and men of every party and candidate preference, and
> every ethnicity too, owe Hillary Clinton a standing ovation, even if they
> can't stand her.'
>
> "Not just applause, but a fucking standing ovation. Actual politics, or even
> the philosophy and ideology that may animate politics, is a secondary
> concern, if it's a concern at all. Hillary showed that a woman could
> seriously run for high office. What she would do if elected isn't all that
> important, at least when compared to the symbolism of her candidacy. This is
> why Pollitt urges those 'of every party' (the Sparts, too?) to leap up and
> cheer Hillary. Personality trumps politics every time, that is, if you want
> to be taken seriously as a political commentator.
>
> "That Hillary encountered some truly misogynistic behavior on the trail does
> not beautify her squalid politics, which in this campaign included conscious
> race-baiting of Obama. Yet if you take Pollitt's hand, Hillary's ugly views
> soften in focus, but cannot be erased completely. Pollitt acknowledges this,
> mentioning Iraq and the probable racism of a portion of Hillary's supporters.
> Pollitt's not even sure that she can trust Hillary to get behind Obama, but
> in the end, these doubts fade as Pollitt advises Hillary to throw some
> history mojo at Obama, since, once elected, he'll 'pursue policies to benefit
> all women -- on labor, healthcare, sexual violence and many other issues.' I
> bet the Concerned Women for America can't wait.
>
> "It's instructive to contrast Pollitt's fantasies and projections about
> Hillary and Obama against her slagging of Nicholson Baker's excellent,
> horrifying book, 'Human Smoke.' Over 474 pages, Baker slowly, carefully
> describes the inevitable march to the Second World War, demystifying official
> heroes and myths, showing the similarities between democracies and tyrannies
> when it comes to nationalism and total war, and amid the madness, Baker
> elevates the period's pacifists as the true champions of freedom and human
> rights. This enraged Pollitt: 'By the time I finished the book I felt
> something I had never felt before: fury at pacifists.'
>
> "Now, taken alone, that's not necessarily a terrible statement. Depends on
> your view of violence, state-backed or otherwise. When I finished 'Human
> Smoke,' I didn't share Pollitt's fury; I merely felt sadness, not only for
> those whose prescription for humanity had absolutely no chance at that time
> (or probably any time), but for the human race overall. I don't believe that
> WWII was a 'good war,' but it was an inescapable one, given the geopolitical
> realities of the period. Still, it seems a bit odd to be furious with
> long-dead people who opposed the mass slaughter from the beginning, and who
> had zero influence over those waging war. For these people, Pollitt has
> contempt. For Hillary Clinton, who is dripping with Iraqi blood, who spoke
> about obliterating Iran while backing Israeli violence against Lebanon and
> Gaza, Pollitt has admiration, and insists that we share it and express it,
> despite what we really think about the woman. I only hope that Pollitt didn't
> wear her good shoes when standing to applaud her hero."
>
> Dennis ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk