BILLARY—TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE?
BILLARY—TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE? NOT REALLY, IT’S TWO HALVES OF A VERY DYSFUNCTIONAL WHOLE
by
Ken Eliasberg
It is always fun to kinda psyhcoanalyze couples you meet—you know what are they doing together, what makes their marriage work, etc., etc. You’re probably wrong more often than you’re right, but, nonetheless, it’s harmless fun, and we all do it. I have been particularly intrigued with delving into the Clinton marriage—ever since they informed us that by electing Bill we would be getting 2 for the price of one. Aside from the fact that I have always been of the view that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that you get what you pay for, all the Hillary hype made it almost irresistibleto take a closer look at this marriage and the “2 for 1” offering. It didn’t take long to realize that, as they say, if it looks to good to be true, it typically is. Or, another way of looking at it—maybe we did get 2 for 1—2 shameless dirtbags who would lie, cheat, steal, and, in short, do anything, no matter how immoral or even criminal, to acquire and hold onto power. And, frankly, to engage in corruption as sweeping as we witnessed during the Clinton years, you would need more than one person.
But still, marital navel-gazing in this case was tough not to do—what brought these 2 seemingly disparate types together. What did this charming, charismatic, characterless empty suit see in this arrogant, unattractive harpie.? What drew “Slick Willie” to “Nurse Ratched,” and vice versa—what drew her to him? We have seen them recently lavish praise on one another—he describing her as a “genius” (some genius), and she describing him as a “force of nature,” which, in a rather disgusting way, he was indeed. But when you look closer this was a very understandable coupling—more of a merger than a marriage. Incomplete halves in search of what was lacking to make them a whole. He charming, facile, spontaneous, charismatic but completely undisciplined (and, when you get past the surface, really pretty spineless). She, brittle, overbearing, imperious, insecure, lacking a trace of spontaneity, and as unpleasant as he was charming but focused and disciplined (in a rather inflexible and uncompromising way). When viewed in this light, the union becomes completely understandable. They don’t have a synergy—they have a symbiosis—they are not 2 separate and distinct entities; they are 2 halves of a whole, each needing the other to produce some sort of complete, albeit dysfunctional and malformed, totality.
We need to add one element to this theme—role reversal. She is really the man—in this case, disciplined in a compulsively brittle way; he is the woman, empathetic, spontaneous and warm - and a shameless slut who can’t keep her legs crossed. However, she (Bill) has judgment and can function in the real world—he is street savvy. He (Hillary) may be book smart, but she is totally devoid of judgment and needs a guide to negotiating the personality aspects of the real world. In addition, she is charmless, lacking any trace of charisma, ruthless, vindictive, and completely mean spirited. Finally, she is cold, calculating, cunning, and thoroughly unlikeable—but she is his caretaker. In short, she is his backbone, he is her meal ticket.
And, in the final analysis, the public knows all of this—how could they not? The Clintons are our first tabloid president and first lady (and, it’s really a stretch to call Hillary a lady). The depressing part of this is that, notwithstanding their complete lack of almost any morally redeeming feature , he could be re-elected tomorrow. Think about that, we have been brought so low over the last 40 years that we would put a rapist (and a traitor) back in the White House. Heck, we might even put his witch of a wife in the White House if we don’t pay heed to history. In this regard, I recommend Kathleen Willey’s recent book, Target, for a penetrating look into the morals and manners of the Clintons.
The Clintons pose the following intriguing questions:
What sort of responsible male, not to mention husband, operates in this recklessly, immoral manner and continues to not only get away with it but remains popular with a substantial number of voters?
What sort of woman and wife(and an avowed feminist) not only continues to put up with this sort of behavior, but colludes with her husband to damage and destroy the women—dozens of them—that he has bedded?
What sort of colleagues, supporters, and partisans circle the wagons around this sort of moral reprobate and refuse to break ranks, and, finally?
What sort of country have we become when we not only accept this kind of person but continue to support him?
For an excellent psychological exploration of the Clinton marriage, I strongly recommend Kathleen Willey’s recently released book, Target, World Ahead Publishing (2007), particularly pages 225-229.