Why Losing Is So Becoming on Some Politicians.
by
john adkisson
05/08/2008, 2:04 AM #
After closely watching and participating in politics for forty years, it never ceases to amaze me how deeply angered by a politican I can feel on one day, and how positively smitten the next. It happens when they lose or retire.
I was sure that Hillary Clinton had lost the nomination only when her Indiana victory speech sounded downright inspiring to me. I have always hated her speeches! But last night I thought she was gracious, authentic, and sincere. What am I saying? I have been disgusted by her campaign and her speeches for 15 months. But something happened -- I can't help it, I Iiked her last night-- I suppose because she was no longer a threat to my candidate Barack.
I started thinking back on analogous situations in my 40 years of political emotional relationships, because I knew I had felt this before.
The most glaring example was Richard Nixon. A scoundrel. A crook. A divisive, prejudiced man. Until he resigned. At first I just felt pity as you would for a condemned prisoner after his last meal. But as years went on, I started listening to him and he sounded smart to me. I even liked him. I thought he was the best informed living American political wise man. He even seemed more liberal. But the main thing was that I no longer "hated" him which was the only emotion I had ever directed at him while he was in office.
After feeling strong antipathy toward him, I also came to like George H.W. Bush once he was defeated, and even his gang of internationalists, especially Powell and Scowcroft. Upon their retirements I also found a before untapped affection for Howard Baker, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, Barry Goldwater--and these are just the Republicans! (I hope to God I don't start liking George W any time soon-- that could give me a disease.)
Back to the democrats. I was mad at Walter Mondale for his "where's the beef" campaign against Gary Hart in the 1984 primaries but returned to the fold of fans after he lost to Reagan in the general. And Hubert Humphrey, the great civil rights warrior (that's how I remember him now) was a subject of my deepest disdain in 1968 when he was running in the primary against my heroes Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. Oh, was he a villain, until he lost to Nixon.
My renewed affection for Hillary, despite her continued obfuscations and crazy math, started the moment I fully and inalterably perceived she was not a threat. (That was last night.) Why? Maybe it's that I don't hold grudges. (No, because I actually do.) Maybe it's because once the burden of power is lifted from the shoulders of a politician, they return to a sort of normalcy in their personalities, and I no longer recognize the facade I had come to despise. (possibly).
But maybe it's this: once a poitician who makes me cringe with anger loses, retires, or otherwise is stripped of his or her power or potential power -- there is simply no more reason to fear of loathe them. In fact, once you have set down your fears and stop blaming them for things that can no longer be effected by them -- there's no point in directing anger at them at all. You can even let them grow on you.
In conclusion, I don't dislike any politicians permanently (poor George Wallace in his wheelchair--have a heart!) -- even the worst ones. What I don't like is the power bad politicians may abuse. Once that possibility passes, they're potentially cool again.
At least for now, I kind of like Hillary again. (I'm still working on Bill.)
Anyhow, this has been a long way of saying the democrats will definitely be united in November, Hillary's backers just need to fall in love with Barack. It happens. It's happened to me dozens of times.
