2 Responses to “A political preface…”

1. Moonpanther on May 26th, 2008 9:01 am

   I think Keith makes a good point. As an English teacher, I’m very aware of how the use of language has a giant impact on meaning. The use of the word “assassination” in this climate is heavily weighted and does imply that she’s sticking around waiting for that eventuality. It places the idea on the table as a viable option whereas the unspoken insistence on not talking about that attaches to it a social taboo that can be a more effective deterrent than an army of bodyguards.

   We are social creatures and often our fears of punishment stem not from a fear of punishment itself which we’re taught is noble to endure in the course of righteousness (from our idolization of POWs to worship of Jesus Christ), but rather from a fear of social demonization. We’re ok with prison or the death penalty, but the idea of our legacy being “the crazy guy who shot a presidential nominee” places the majority of Americans into a state of terror. We want to be remembered as freedom fighters or forces for good. If it’s even socially prohibited to discuss assassination, then the act itself takes on a much more monstrous aspect.

   What Sen. Clinton did here was break that taboo, and did so in such a way as to try and avoid social repercussions (which Keith Olbermann is now trying to levy against her) by couching it in historical terms. The fact of the matter is that everyone knows that Bobby Kennedy was shot in California during the Democratic primary race, and even if they didn’t it’s not germane to the conversation. All she needed to say was that Sen. Kennedy was still fighting a primary well into June of ‘68 (which is semi-true since he was practically running a McCain primary at that point) just like her husband was in ‘92. Invoking the Kennedy name in that manner would have done two things: 1) it would have caused a lot of people to metaphorically bow their heads as they realized what had happened and what she didn’t say, thank God, and 2) it would have drawn a positive (if undeserving) parallel between her and arguably the most famous and popular political family of the 20th century. Instead she had to mention why Bobby Kennedy didn’t get the nomination and Hubert Humphrey did, effectively destroying or at least limiting the social shield regarding assassination as a political statement and making herself look like she was invoking ghosts to try to further her own career. This is no different than McCain casually dropping the Rev. Wright thing to this day, hoping the media will once again look at it and weaken the man who will likely be his rival come November.

2. Adam on May 28th, 2008 1:24 pm

   Exactly, Chris. I let it sit for a few days, and I think that you’ll find my comments on the topic from the other day, when I finally did tie together my thoughts, pretty much expresses most of what you’ve said in the historical aspect rather than the etymological and connotative aspects. Its like I said at the close of my entry the other day: there are things that when you say them, you need to understand the full comments and ramifications of what has been said and how. And I don’t think that the word choice was right in the slightest for the situation.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sign up for free and comment away!