- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
November 18, 2009
Exclusive: Helsinki Hillary – A Case of the Stockholm Syndrome In An Exiled Leader?
Political campaigns and elections can tell us as much about a nation - its beliefs, goals and values - as well as that of the candidates.
It has been slightly more than a year since the historic election of an African-American man to the highest office in the United States, and some could argue victor of the preeminent election in the world. If the election of Nelson Mandela in South Africa was groundbreaking for the time, regardless of one’s political perspective, Barack Obama’s ascendency to the Oval Office was no less inspirational or notable. Such a laudable event should not impact our passions as loyal supporter or loyal opposition but it should, across party lines, for at least a moment, remind us our great nation provides untold opportunities regardless of class, race or ethnicity. Though a term overused, 2008 was indeed “historic.” And, the Democrat’s primary preceding the election offered the U.S. voter two opportunities for a “first” – a woman – Sen. Hillary Clinton, and an African-American – Sen. Barack Obama. The presidential election offered another set of “firsts” – a first woman VP or a first black president. At the end of the day the nation was more comfortable selecting black man to a woman president or VP.
Hillary, and to a lesser degree Sarah Palin, can take some solace in past events. History teaches if we would only learn. The evolution of civil rights in the U.S., especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries, should have instructed how the presidential election would have played out, and can play out in the future. Blacks earned the vote well before women, so it should have come as no surprise that when the road and the rubber met, Barack Obama would be preferred over Hillary Clinton. Is this a simplistic interpretation? Not when elections often hinge on gut, instinct, habit, bias or preconceived notions – and these usually all roll into one in when issues of race, religion or gender arise.
And, if time heals all wounds, it also offers to shine a brighter light of scrutiny on long held notions. In 2008 the U.S. public was marginally prepared for a man of black heritage to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania; the country was even less inclined to welcome a woman as occupant of the Oval Office. But to quote a well played song – “these times they are a changin’…” We all view life through the prism of our beliefs, experiences and expectations. Politics in the U.S. are evolving. As more women enter the arena – some good and bright, some popular, some talented, some not – eventually the numbers will provide critical mass, so that when a woman enters she is not micro-studied and when a woman is brilliant, we are not surprised; when she is dimwitted we do not immediately rush to gender as part of the description.
There’s an irony not to be missed in global affairs. The nations that were first to have welcomed women as their leaders – India, the United Kingdom and Ireland – were traditional societies built upon strong class castes and gender roles. One wonders why an upstart nation built upon the notion everyone is equal, such as the U.S., has yet to seat a woman into the presidency. Of course when founded, “everyone” meant men. But the 19th Amendment has been a catalyst for change, slow though it is. But there’s a lesson to be learned: It is historical fact that Great Britain’s glory days were under the leadership of women – some ascended by birthright, others by the ballot.
That a nation built on egalitarianism has yet to put a woman in the White House can at least be tempered by the reality a black man was elected to occupy that lofty estate. And while we can argue on the merits of our current Speaker of the House, the visual of a woman in that critical political office is no less inspirational to the over 50 percent of the population seeking political, economic and security equality.
Elections – To the Victor Go the Spoils
In the early years of our fledgling country, the winner became the president and the runner up became the vice president, party affiliation notwithstanding. In some ways it was the best of both worlds – both parties, both sides had access, nominal if not empowered, but still at the table with ready access. At a time when emotions run high (1790s or 21st century), critical issues had extreme proponents, and the pendulum seems to be swinging in an arch wider than the incrementalist sensibilities of the Framers. So having bipartisan empowerment might be desirable, unless sweeping changes are the goal. To each team they are; the nation seems to work best when the truth lies somewhere in the middle. For all the Congressional tug of war between the ultra left and extreme right, we are a nation of moderates.
Running for Office is Warfare – Hence the Name Campaign, only the Bloodshed is Less Visible
Consider our current Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton – former first lady, former U.S. senator, former presidential candidate, and now Secretary of State. Certainly it has been an amazing run for anyone, right? Yet why does she look so miserable? Could it be she has been relegated to the Podunk of the political world? Could it be she has become a messenger instead of valued emissary as prior Secretary’s of State have been? Could it be she is still wondering how a relative unknown and upstart took the presidential primary from her and ran with it all the way to the White House? Could it be she wonders what it would have been like to remain in the senate as a force her political rival must deal with, instead of an employee at the victor’s beck and call? Could it be she misses the fray? Could it be she misses her own version of the lime light and the ability to evolve as a statesman? Again, we can differ on our politics and opinion of Mrs. Clinton, but a legacy as statesman is not mere consolation prize in lieu of the West Wing. Ted Kennedy accepted his fate, made peace with becoming a legislator, authored bills that will stand the test of time as beneficial for both Democrats and Republicans, reached across the aisle during times of heated polarized politics and times of moderation. History will likely honor him as one of the notable elder statesmen of the U.S. Senate. Hillary could very well have accomplished the same.
Battle lines don’t just get drawn between parties, they occur within parties. The nation is in a precarious situation – the economy is still in trouble, the recent Wall Street uptick notwithstanding, the seasonal and swine flu vaccine program has been a disaster, Iran and Russia are nearing their strides as influencers and provocateurs, the situation in Afghanistan is worsening, healthcare reform is the Gordian knot, rising fuel prices loom on the horizon, increasing numbers of states are bankrupt or near financial disaster resulting in criticalprograms being cut, and the political climate is evolving into a highly polarized one. While some would argue this is a time for sweeping, nearly unbridled reforms, others take the stance this is a time for prudent change. Should the pendulum sweep far and wide or short and measured?
Was the 2008 election a referendum against moderates or old timers in politics? “Moderate” and “Hillary Clinton” in the same sentence – crazy notion? Not by comparison.
Let us review the turn of events, or dare I say plight, of Hillary Clinton. First, she and her vaunted political machine, the odds on favorite to win the DNC presidential primary, get blindsided and loses. Her subsequent exile out of Washington was a brilliant strategic move on the part of Team Obama and a colossal blunder from Team Hillary. President Obama has appointed more emissaries than the Pashas of ancient Asia, and sent them on high level diplomatic missions that were heretofore the purview of a Secretary of State. What’s up with that? Simple – weaken an adversary. Game, set and match. Hillary Clinton is a bright, powerful and talented person. Her resignation from the Senate was a tremendous loss of brainpower from an institution that increasingly is bereft of cogent thought. And it was brilliant strategy on the part of the Obama team. Simple strategy that Sun Tzu would have admired and Machiavelli could have designed – take the limelight off your political rival and emasculate (if you’ll excuse the term) her in the process.
Is it any wonder she looks shell shocked? Seriously, has anyone really taken a good look at the former senator from New York? If ever there was a case of Stockholm syndrome, she is the poster child for it.
“We are not wholly bad or good who live our lives under Milkwood. And Thou I know would be the first to see our best and not our worst.” – Dylan Thomas.
Hilary Clinton is a savvy politician and someone who clearly has grasped the art of the possible. So how was she so easily outmaneuvered? Was it party loyalty – take one for the team? Or something else? One has to wonder if Rahm “The Enforcer” Emmanuel, George “One World” Soros or Team Obama have something to hold over Hillary. If so, it must be a doozey. Don’t believe me? Then why does the former firebrand of the Democrat Party look like a hostage reading prepared statements at gunpoint whenever you see her in public? Her speeches, penned through central command are delivered with the enthusiasm of one walking the plank, and either ring hollow as items the former senator would never utter on her own, or are kept out of the media, lest her diplomatic activities, at least the ones she is allowed to initiate, garner undue attention and provide a potential springboard necessary for a challenger. Does the the nation benefit? Does Hillary’s credibility?
As a physician, my first clue Hillary was succumbing to Stockholm Syndrome, which is often referred to by the misnomer Helsinki Complex, was her speech trying to debunk the notion that Russia would not enthusiastically support the current U.S. strategy towards a nuclear Iran. Recall the days immediately after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE) admitted yet another example where they were blindsided, caught off guard by Iran. In a moment of global bonhomie and enlightenment (more a delaying tactic or playtime to screw with the West), Iran disclosed they had another secret uranium enrichment site. Of course this was after being caught by the CIA and probably some nudging from outspoken nuclear nerds and preparedness pundits that can be read on the pages of FSM. Immediately the West cries foul at Iran and calls upon the world community to band together. Translation: C’mon Russia, join us. Of course that just underscores the West’s cluelessness on the issue.
Forgive me for sounding like a broken record but it is in Russia’s best interest to have Iran as the agent provocateur. Iran is Russia’s proxy. Ahmadinejad has played the game with Putin and Putin Lite (Medvedev) very deftly. Both are winning and achieving their goals against Israel and the West. Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things; some we are concerned about and to be fair, some we admire as foreign policy conservatives. But she isn’t an idiot. She knows Russia is not our friend or ally. But following orders she delivered a robotic, Stepford-like public statement assuring listeners Russia is our ally, and we have common interests in forcing Iran to yield its nuclear weapons programs. Putin must have opened a special bottle of iced Stoli or popped open the 1978 bottle of Dom just for the occasion if he could drink while laughing. And each speech, each mission to a developing nation, each month away from Washington puts Hillary farther away from influence. Granted, she is both lightening rod to critics and celebrity to fans. She is news wherever she goes but the crowd size and support can and will wane with time.
While it is a big ego rush to stand at an auspicious occasion such as the celebration of freedom in Berlin representing the U.S. – the nation that was responsible for the now 20th anniversary of the “fall of the wall” symbolically of communism – has Hillary exchanged a short time in the Cabinet for her role as a senior statesman of the United States? Is her career over? We make a major mistake when we underestimate a Clinton – Bill or Hillary. Is it desirable to have Hillary back on the Hill or back in .D.C? Clearly she can rewrite her memoirs, rebuild her political power base – re energize women voters, and wait for an opportunity. Hillary might yet get her second chance at Washington stardom. Is that good for America? For women?
From a woman’s political perspective there’s Pelosi, but if she is the best and brightest in her party, clearly Hillary is a stand-up home run if she aims for 2012 to regain her Senate seat and Congressional influence instead of challenging the president. With the continued tenacity of the 21st century Tea Party revolutionaries, the growing power of the Internet as voice for the loyal opposition, team Obama can be defeated or weakened. Hillary can reemerge as a party leader. Don’t get me wrong. The liberals in charge of Washington, D.C. are the last ones anyone on the right would want if a conservative alternative could be realized, given the liberals’ current and likely future track record. But having a powerful political adversary who is at least in degrees more moderate, in a position to counter the unbridled and unchecked appetites of the current power elite would be good for the nation. Hillary Clinton may display forced singing of kumbaya on those times she is dragged to a Cabinet meeting, is never the less not willingly drinking the Kool-Aid ®. She can be cured of her Stockholm Syndrome. It will take time, and some courage on the part of the patient. Does she still have any fight left in her? Can Hillary’s network of supporters, agents and loyalists recover whatever damaging information or evidence exists that seems to be her Kryptonite?
Hindsight is 20/20. The Obama strategy wasn’t shocking on face value, it was genius. What was shocking is that it worked: Hillary out of the Senate and out of the country. Instead of receiving flowers in Zaire, she could have been on The Hill – either as consigliere or competitor to POTUS. Instead of Hillary acquiescing and seeing her policy objectives overlooked, they would be on the table; her influence, which by now had she remained in the Senate, would have been significant. There is nothing sweeter than forcing an adversary to deal with you on your terms. But that opportunity was lost the moment she agreed to take a Cabinet post.
So upon first blush, one would think a Herculean task to challenge a sitting president. If the true impact of the economy, Afghanistan, geoglobal energy problems, loss of influence worldwide, a widening earnings gap, a middle class under siege, an opportunity still exists for Hillary, in a bid for the White House instead of the Senate in 2012, slim though it may be.
But if Hillary regains her smarts again, reestablishes her mark on politics and reenergizes her political machine, our nation may finally be ready to utter the words Madam President. She was the first legitimate female candidate for the presidency. At the very least, were she to try for Senate again, assuming New Yorkers allow reentry, considering they might fear her election was springboard for 2016, she could emerge as a leader in the Senate.
The Conservative Window
The 2010 election is barely a year away and the presidency is once again up for grabs in 2012. The conservatives need to step up their game.
Three years – an eternity when you are out of power, and a brief moment in time to develop a viable contender. The loyal opposition has two years to identify and groom a legitimate presidential candidate – one, first and foremost, who is eloquent and charismatic, since those seem to be the most critical skills the American public demand of a candidate, at least while walking to the ballot box. Conservatives should take its cue from liberals on the following:
First – Where is the message? What does the loyal opposition stand for, not merely against?Liberals make great sport at conveying conservatives as obstructionist, being merely against ideas instead of promoting their own. Conservatives are playing into liberal rhetoric. Liberals and media run with a message that does seem like conservatives want to cancel Santa, food for the poor and education for the illiterate. Yet nothing could be farther from the truth. Conservatives are folks who, person for person contribute much for the public good. Taxes and by extension the government, aren’t the only way to help our fellow citizens. The regressive tax system ultimately hurts the common good. We should make that abundantly clear with examples. Liberals keep using the term “progressive” as if by extension conservatives are regressive. The progressive tax system feeds an insatiable government that has never really been able to fix more than a handful of problems it was tasked with doing in a way that could not be exceeded by private enterprise or philanthropy. Community philanthropy not government bureaucracy is the way to help the least among us.
Second – play nice in public. Squabbles should be private matters. The public stupidity in New York cost conservatives a seat in Congress.
Third – develop a grass roots farm team that exceeds the longstanding one liberals have developed across the country. This battle of ideas cannot be won without foot soldiers and the next generation.
Fourth – get someone who actually knows how to develop a user (youth) friendly web site. Former Gov. Howard Dean may be the Crazy Eddy of the political world, but he got pretty far. There’s a lesson to be learned by his strategy and tactics.
Fifth – develop spokespeople in the media, in the entertainment industry representative and supportive of conservative values, as shrewd, eloquent and self-taught as Mike Farrell of M*A*S*H fame and similar who are liberal speakers, to go around the country. He’s good, very good at promoting the liberal agenda and makes rain seem dry all the while your clothes are soaked. Most of our folks have the visual and audio appeal of a 1940s radio show or fail to mix it up with the fervor of a hungry boxer.
Six – Town hall incumbents to exhaustion. Decisions are made by those who show up.
Seventh – Women and minorities must have a place in the party from the top down and the bottom up. Sarah Palin was badly mismanaged in the 2008 election. She has become a phenomenon without official support, clearly demonstrating star power, and has piqued the collective American curiosity given the number of people who attend her events and the sales of her book before it was even published. Just the fact that she is a lightening rod of the liberal media underscores the reality she has a message that resonates with a sizable audience in U.S. political discourse. Conservatives need to tap into that. As mother, athlete, college grad, governor, writer and public figure, if ever there was a good role model for the next generation especially young women – but it is a generation that conservatives are losing. It doesn’t have to!
The Future
Conservatives are fighting the clock. While the gubernatorial race victories in New Jersey and Virginia are important and send a powerful message, if marshaled and utilized properly, the fact remains Congress is still a liberal bastion. The tide has yet to turn. From today there is less than a year to promote Congressional challengers to the liberal agenda – whether they can win or not matters less than having them in the race, especially in areas where the conservative message is invisible.
Helsinki Hillary – A Case of the Stockholm Syndrome In An Exiled Leader? Is this the final stop for Hillary Clinton or an opportunity to escape, regroup and reemerge? Experience and a dose of patriotism are sorely needed in American politics. Hillary can still be that person, if she has the will to survive and the patience to wait for her opportunity.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Robin McFee is a physician and medical toxicologist. An expert in WMD preparedness, she is a consultant to government agencies, corporations and the media. Dr. McFee is a member of the Global Terrorism, Political Instability and International Crime Council of ASIS International. She has authored numerous articles on terrorism, health care and preparedness, and coauthored two books: Toxico-Terrorism by McGraw Hill and The Handbook of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Agents, published by Informa/CRC Press.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
