Six Degrees of Stupid
If Hillary Clinton actively seeks, or publicly accepts, the endorsement of Henry Kissinger, I will vote for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld on November 8.... Plus, I really do want Bill Weld to be vice-president. -- Charles Pierce, yesterday
Let's parse that.
If Hillary Clinton really is seeking Henry Kissinger's endorsement, a suggestion Pierce picked up from Politico, whose reporter Nahal Toosi interviewed "some unnamed people" in the Clinton campaign, that's Stupid No. 1. Anyone who remembers reports from the Dark Ages and more recently will likely agree with Pierce that Kissinger is a "war criminal and abettor of abattoirs around the world." Toosi's report may not be the far-fetched imaginings of some low-level Clinton staffers. As Politico's Daniel Strauss reported in February of this year, Clinton's praise of Kissinger -- and their "friendship" -- "go back years." It's no secret that Clinton is seeking Republican backing, but it's hard to see how gaining a stamp of approval from Kissinger would help her much in this campaign. He is barely remembered, and when he is, he is scarcely remembered fondly. Kissinger's endorsement would be more of an embarrassment than an asset.
But would it matter much in the election? No, not unless Clinton made a big deal of it. That would be Stupid No. 2. It appears Clinton will get numerous endorsements from Republicans who fundamentally disagree with Democratic principles. In general, this may give ordinary Republican voters permission to hold their noses & vote for Clinton. So a one-news-cycle Kissinger endorsement would be quickly forgotten or buried in the flood of Outrageous Things Donald Trump Said Today.
How would a Kissinger endorsement affect Clinton's international policy? Well, not at all. Kissinger is 93 years old. Clinton will not make him secretary of state or even appoint him to some kind of advisory role, though I surmise she would take his calls, just as she would speak to any former secretary of state. So Stupid No. 3 is assuming a Kissinger thumbs-up would have some meaningful impact on U.S. policy.
Now to the meat of Pierce's threat: that he would vote for Gary Johnson & Bill Weld in protest. That's Stupid No. 4. It's a given that Gary Johnson will not be our next president. While it's true that, in general, any success the Johnson-Weld ticket enjoys would cut into Trump's totals more than it would Clinton's, Pierce is proposing that liberals turn to Johnson. There is an off-chance that Johnson-Weld votes would throw the election to the Congress, which, as you may have noticed, is in Republican hands. The Congress would not necessarily choose Trump, but they sure as hell wouldn't decide on Bernie Sanders, for whom Pierce says he voted in the Massachusetts primary. Whatever the outcome of the election, a vote for Johnson is not going to yield a president of Pierce's persuasions. Except perhaps one of his persuasions. That leads us to ...
Stupid No. 5 is Pierce's misogynistic demands of Hillary Clinton. "If you don't do what I say, even when what I say is silly or inconsequential, then I'm going to dump you." This is a bullying technique, one with which most women who have ever dated men are familiar. It's not the kind of demand Pierce would make of a man. Pierce has revealed his misogyny before, but it's pretty blatant here. Even as he stamps his feet at Hillary for possibly entertaining a Kissinger endorsement, he declares he really wants to see Bill Weld a heartbeat away from the presidency. That would be this Bill Weld:
... convivial gubernatorial wannabe Bill Weld’s big-time Republican Establishment friends are still behind him. Sources say Henry Kissinger (whom Weld knows from his past, including a gig in the Reagan Justice Department) and his wife, Nancy, are hosting a cocktail party for Weld at their River House apartment on March 14, with the goal of raising $100,000. -- Greg Sargent, in New York magazine, (undated, but ca. 1990, I think)
It's OK If You're A Man.
Stupid No. 6. Pierce knows he has a following, and surely he hopes his readers will, well, follow him. As such, he has a responsibility to discourage -- not encourage -- a stupid protest vote. But to show off his pique and to attempt to control the girl candidate, Donald Trump style, he abdicates his responsibility to his readership.
Share Article
Reader Comments (11)
I was disappointed by this reading also. (Just wrote a note and it disappeared, so hoping it doesn't reappear where it shouldn't...) Pierce has shown his colors where women are concerned in other writings, so I guess he is NOT ready for Hillary despite his saying so after Bernie endorsed her. I can't stand Henry the K either, being of a certain age, but I don't think he will figure in her campaign. At least I hope not, and I hope Pierce comes to his senses-- the libertarians are like a nice snake you might like to pet, but look out--
As an afterthought: Pierce has many regulars who are women, and many people (most) are progressive: this article did not play well; he got many who disagreed with his "stand--" and they told him why. (He never answers, tho--)
When I read it, I also thought it stupid, and Pierce often admits he is not above stupid stuff. But if I remember correctly, he noted in the piece that MA is blue and going HRC no matter what, so he is playing in that voter-egoistic turf of "if your state is solid blue, you can afford a protest vote."
I totally disagree with that. Every vote is a spade which should help to dig the deepest hole in which to bury every vestige and shred of DJT. No brick should stand on brick, and salt should be poured upon the bonfire built over that hole after the immolation. GOTV.
I was one of the women who objected strenuously to Pierce's post. He's done a series of hits on Clinton, and I'm sick of it. Though I've been a regular reader, I won't waste my time reading his posts in the future. It's not called a glass ceiling for nothing. For all too many men (and women) who would never think of themselves as sexist, the ceiling is invisible, so it's okay to have a double standard.
I recall many moons ago that Marie mentioned Pierce's problem with women, something I had not noticed, until I did. This particular message of his smacks of pure–-ah, heck why not continue with that word––STUPID!
For another perspective of the lady in question. A couple says ago we posted a link to Mike Morell's op-ed in the NYT castigating Trump and praising Hillary. Last night he was on Rose expanding on his accolades of Hillary and shouting the alarm about Trump ever becoming involved with foreign policy. Here's a few things he said about Hillary:
1- she was always prepared. "We had to read reams of papers that most of us mostly skimmed, but she read them cover to cover."
2- She asked really good questions
3- She was able to change her view if she thought someone else's made more sense.
4- She's a good listener––an essential in this business.
5-she's calm, collective and tough, understanding that for diplomacy to be effective force needs to be on the table. She wanted more skin in the game in Syria, for instance.
Mike is fun and interesting to listen to––he's very precise, and presents as someone who takes whatever he does or says very seriously.
Charles Pierce on the other hand plays with words, can be very clever with those words, but he's not a player here. He's gone off half cocked because...well, we can only surmise. Perhaps too much of that anti=freeze that he is known to guzzle has done him in.
And that's not to mention that Pierce so often mocks Politico as Tiger Beat on the Potomac, and now, suddenly, the site is a reliable source for...rumors.
Good one, June! I read him every day and usually agree with your posts-- welcome to RC! It's a good group! I don't chat on Charlie's because I refuse to use Facebook...but I read it all...
well, let's spread the word to those disaffected by charlie. there's a new journalist in town.
What a mealy-mouthed interview from Susan Collins on the PBS Newshour.
Comrade trump is showing his inner Putin, again, trying to emulate his hero and Manafort brings some of the modus operandi of his despot clients to the US. It really is beyond lines, pales, words, everything. There are no policies, positions, mores, morals, ethics, coherence, anything, on the trump train.
This talk of misogyny reminded me of a segment I caught on GPS this weekend with Malcolm Gladwell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecoeYRDwcz4
It'll probably only be getting worse for Hillary since all these people have already patted themselves on the back for being open enough to consider her a viable candidate. Moral licensing to lay into her now.
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/01-the-lady-vanishes
I am just terrified that so many Progressives will vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, that we will put this maniac in the White House. See: Nader.