Hillary Clinton

Ralph Nader Blames Hillary Clinton's Lady Bits for Her "Shocking" Militarism

So what explains Obama's and Bush's? A pressing point gets lost in pop psychologizing.

|

Recidivist presidential candidate Ralph Nader has a history of lashing out at leading Democrats in over-the-top language (that time he warned Barack Obama not to be an Uncle Tom to corporate America).

Here he is, courtesy of PJ Media, calling out Hillary Clinton for her hawkishness:

"She almost singlehandedly did the Libyan war. The Defense Department was against it, [Secretary Robert] Gates, and she persuaded the White House that it was an easy topple without knowing that in a tribal society with nothing to replace it you would have a civil war, sectarian killings spilling into Africa, weapons everywhere, Mali, central Africa and she's being accused of Benghazi – the big thing is the huge amount of geography that has been destabilized because of the Libyan overthrow," he added.

Nader, who ran for president in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, said Clinton "never met a weapons system she didn't like" when she was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"This is the problem of women trying to overcompensate in becoming more aggressive and macho so they are not accused of being soft on the need to kill and war, right? Instead of taking the tradition of women of peace, and turning into a muscular waging of peace of conflict and prevention, she [Clinton] did the reverse, and [Madeline] Albright did the reverse and Anne Marie Slaughter did the reverse and some of Obama's advisers did the reverse," he said. "We have to be transcendent on this. We have to really go right to the core of what people are standing for, fighting for and fighting against."

Here's video of Nader talking at D.C.-based bookstore Politics & Prose.

Without addressing his psychologizing about gender-based overcompensation (recall, something similar was imputed to George H.W. Bush, who was said to battle "the wimp factor" despite being a decorated World War II hero), there is little question that Hillary Clinton, as a senator and secretary of state, was clearly more on the hawkish side than the dovish.

Nader's substantive point about Clinton's foreign policy record of failure will likely be drowned out in a discussion about gender (this is more than understandable). That's a shame because if there is one thing the country has desperately needed since the end of the Cold War and especially in the wake of the 9/11 attacks is an extended debate and discussion of American foreign policy. While I think the Cold War was mostly waged in the wrong ways, you can at least argue that it was the result of a consensus between both major parties and even both major ideological tendences. As Richard Gid Powers noted in his excellent history of the period, Not Without Honor, American liberals were as or even more dedicated to Cold War geopolitics than their conservative counterparts, and the U.S. labor movement was a major factor in destabilizing Soviet power in Eastern Europe.

In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's not even that the United States has built a new foreign policy consensus that is terrible (though the past dozen-plus years have been that and worse), it's that there is not even the pretense of hashing out a grand strategy. Bill Clinton was a reckless "mad bomber in chief," dispatching troops and power regularly and recklessly around the globe, especially when domestic issues heated up. George W. Bush's wars have ended in stalemate and worse. Obama's foreign policy, directed as it was for years by Secretary Clinton, has only poured gasoline on a world that is full of sparks.

Last week, I suggested that the pushback on The Patriot Act, led by the bipartisan team of Sens. Rand Paul and Ron Wyden, was a sign that we're moving out of the post-9/11 fog that underwrote military adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and eslewhere. Indeed, Rand Paul's foreign policy statements alone and his ability to still get invited back to CPAC (and win straw poll after straw poll) show there is interest in having a serious converation even among Republicans.

Nader's genderizing (?) of the issue bothers me not simply because this sort of pop psychologizing of politicians is dumb (recall the attacks on Barry Goldwater as certifiably nuts) but also because it gives grounds to yet again push off actual debates about foreign policy.

Last year, Reason interviewed Nader about his book Unstoppable, which called for a progressive-libertarian coalition to stop corporate welfare and end the military-industrial complex. On that last point, Nader contended "The total support of the military-industrial complex and empire by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is staggering." He got that right, and without dragging in extraneous issues.

Here's a full transcript and take a look below:

NEXT: Texas Cops Raid Teen Pool Party, Abortion Rate Down 12 Percent, Americans Distrust Supreme Court on Health Care and Gay Marriage: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. More of a misandrist. He posits thst women are naturally more peaceful and the only reason Hilary is acting this way is to overcompensate in order to appeal to brutish male voters.

  1. Ok. I, loath Shrillary. But Nader is a swine. He’s always been a swine. He made his rep with fake crisis and bogus activism,amd he never got better. In a weird way, it speaks well of Shrillary that he is attacking her.

    Not well engough, though.

    1. In a weird way, it speaks well of Shrillary that he is attacking her.

      It would if there were only two sides to everything. Fortunately, the world is complicated enough that they can both be wrong, and are.

      1. Hence the “Not well enough”

    2. Sure, Ralphie is a commie rat bastard, but if he’s going to call Hillary a warmongering cunt, I’ll give him credit for speaking up. Stopped clock and all that.

      -jcr

    3. He’s just jealous they haven’t smartened up and clamored for Saint Ralph to lead them to a progressive paradise. This is sour grapes talking.

  2. I don’t want to throw around terms like “warmonger”, but has she ever been publicly against some armed conflict?

    What I’d like to see is a list of recent US armed conflicts and her public stance on them. Then, it’d be easier to use the word “warmonger.”

    1. “There are some (read all) problems that only violence can solve. Violence on the side of right (or left, really).”- pretend Hillary.

    2. This is why her comments on the Iraq war vote are such BS. She admits in her book that “we blew it” with that vote. But her every vote and most of her foreign policy positions subsequent to that doesn’t show a change in philosophy.

  3. Nader is a cheeky camping scrublord who needs to get rekt.

    1. Did someone watch Kingsman and wanted to try out some new lingo?

      1. u wot m8? i swer u are one cheeky cunt mate, say it to my face and not online and we’ll see what happens. i swer 2 christ I’ll hook you in the gabba. you better shut your mouth or im calling me homeboys rite now preparin for a proper rumble. tha rumble thatll make your nan sore jus hearin bout it. yer in proper mess ya nob head.

        1. ‘omeboys.

          Also, Manners maketh man.

        2. *polite applause – looks around for Swiss Serv*

  4. Nader is a cheeky camping scrublord who needs to get rekt.

  5. Assholes for a change?

    In Pursuit of Sexism?

    Ralph Nader Presents: A Citizen’s Guide to Douchebaggery?

    Civic Arousal?

    It Happened in the Kitchen: Recipes for Food and Thought?

    “Why Women Pay More”?

    Last 3 are actual titles…

  6. t was an easy topple without knowing (emph. added) that in a tribal society with nothing to replace it you would have a civil war

    Wrong, Ralph. Wrong wrong wrong.

  7. wait, are you pretending that his gender comment doesn’t have a granary of truth to it?

  8. It’s hard to know if Hillary is “overcompensating” or if she’s merely afflicted by that mixture of ignorance and arrogance possessed by all statists of her ilk. I’m inclined to believe the latter explanation myself.

  9. “This is the problem of women trying to overcompensate in becoming more aggressive and macho so they are not accused of being soft on the need to kill and war, right? Instead of taking the tradition of women of peace, and turning into a muscular waging of peace of conflict and prevention, she [Clinton] did the reverse, and [Madeline] Albright did the reverse and Anne Marie Slaughter did the reverse and some of Obama’s advisers did the reverse”

    Maybe women just aren’t naturally more peaceful than men and Nader is basing this logic on ridiculous stereotypes with no basis in fact.

    I personally think the reason women commit fewer crimes is partially because they’re less physically capable. When you put women at the head of a government though, they have a strange tendency to be just as brutal as the men since they now have access to other people’s ability to commit acts of violence.

    1. Female cops are great evidence of this.

      1. As are pretty much any divorced woman.

    2. “Maybe women just aren’t naturally more peaceful than men and Nader is basing this logic on ridiculous stereotypes with no basis in fact.”

      Exactly. The bad thing about sexism or any ism isn’t the fact that you’re making a criticism, it’s that the default motivation for any behavior is assumed to be linked to a given quality, no matter how obscure.

      So the majority of hawks are men and obviously we can’t generalize about their reasons for being hawks are presumably as varied and nuanced as men are. But one woman is a hawk and it’s because she’s a woman.

      1. *because they are

      2. I like Dave Chapelle’s quote “All these years, I thought I liked fried chicken because it was delicious”

  10. Nick as our cis-normative Shitlord?!?!

    He didn’t so much as blame her lady bits as he blamed her lack of man bits (as justification).

    If she wins, will the White House have “Men’s”, “Women’s”, and “Overcompensating” rooms?

    1. At the White House, it’s all “Overcompensating” rooms.

      1. No, the overcompensating room is in the basement.

  11. I also think Nader’s argument is ridiculous because there are a million ways you can talk yourself into a war and an awful lot of those ways appeal to women. Prior to the Iraq War, Americans were overwhelmingly in favor of the conflict, women as well as men. Were all those women polled as being in favor of the Iraq War “compensating?”

    Then there’s someone like Samantha Powers who is constantly agitating for military action based on ostensibly humanitarian grounds. Most of her preferred interventions end just as badly as those of the neocons, but she justifies them with more hippy-dippy, stereotypically feminine reasons. Women are not less warlike than men, at absolute most they just justify their war in different ways.

    1. Women are not less warlike than men, at absolute most they just justify their war in different ways.

      Even among the psychotic and socially maladjusted; men use brute force, women use poison.

    2. Were all those women polled as being in favor of the Iraq War “compensating?”

      Yes. In this case Nader clearly speaks for women much more than does Hillary. Political opinions are largely reflective of the group you identify with, and you don’t just get to choose your group identity. We’ll only progress by allowing the opinions of the traditionally marginalized groups to overpower the essentially uniform opinions of the dominant groups. When a woman, for example, gravitates to an opinion that differs from the collective experience of all women in America, she is compensating for that weakness in a destructive and regressive manner. Hillary should be uniting all women together as a voice of progress and reason, instead she chooses to ape the ruinous opinions of her traditional oppressors.

      1. WTF?

        1. OMG….this is scary. I don’t think this was sarcasm. Is this Tony by another name?

  12. Ima leave the biology out of it and go with, “What is, ‘Because she’s a stupid fuck'”, Alex. Judges??

  13. You know who else spawned a lot of violence trying to compensate for something….

    1. Baron Vladimir Harkonnen?

      1. Cornelius? Luther? Rupert?

  14. Literally everything I do is to make up for not having a penis.

    1. See, I get that. Everything I do is compensation for having been weaned too early. My Mom cut me off when I was 14 years old. I was very choked by this.

  15. “Crashing the Party” is more responsible for my libertarianism than anything Ayn Rand wrote.

    I love ‘ol Ralphie.

  16. in a tribal society with nothing to replace it you would have a civil war

    Oh, come on. Who could possibly have foreseen that?

    1. Its things like that, that turned Willy Wonka into a serial killer.

      http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-…..al-killer/

    2. They all want cake.

  17. This strikes me as being of a piece with the submarining of police brutality into a racialist narrative, there to be disregarded by most people as just more grievance-mongering.

    The left simply cannot stop collectivizing people.

    And, now Hillary’s campaign has a great response to anyone questioning her foreign policy bona fides: “You’re just saying that because she’s a woman.” Good job, Ralph. You couldn’t have helped her campaign more if you meant to.

    1. The left simply cannot stop collectivizing people.

  18. “You’re just saying that because she’s a woman.”

    A stupid woman. A stupid, yet egotistical woman, who wants to impose her idea of what is “right” on me by force.

  19. So old school Socialist and all around Government worshiper Ralph Nader, opposes organized state violence. He’s peaceful statist.

    Yeah right.

    Face it Ralph, your entire life has been advocating for more government coercion and violence.

  20. As much as I find Nader loathsome, I’m not so sure he’s wrong here. And it doesn’t necessarily strike me as “pop psycholgizing”, as pretty straightforward political analysis. The Democrats overall have trended over the last twenty years to a more aggressive posture with regard to foreign policy. They’ve done so because there is a public presumption of Democratic weakness on military affairs and foreign policy. It’s sort of the reverse of the whole “Only Nixon could go to China”. A female Democrat, on the national stage, is going to be faced with double that pressure. It’s not right or fair. But, I don’t think it’s an outlandish assessment.

    1. What pressure? I don’t know anyone who wants more war. And, those that do tend to vote Republican. A Dem will get nothing from them anyway.

      This need to look tough is a smokescreen for “Wow, it is cool to kill people. It makes me feel powerful and important.’

      1. What pressure? I don’t know anyone who wants more war. And, those that do tend to vote Republican. A Dem will get nothing from them anyway.

        Five words – Michael Dukakis in a tank.

        People don’t want war. But, a large portion of the population wants “being weak” and “letting those bastards have free rein” even less.

        1. They don’t want weak. They want vital and strong. But, they don’t want war. Obama could have made the case for not going to war forcefully and people would have been fine with it.

          If Obama said:

          ‘Yeah, I don’t like what is going on in the ME, but I’m leaving it up to them to sort it out. I think we’re all tired of spending our money and spending our lives to try and help people who won’t do the heavy lifting themselves and then hate us for it afterwards. If the Iraqi army won’t fight ISIS then they will end up with another Saddam Hussein. Good luck with that. But, it isn’t our problem.” I think 60% of the population would have been happy with it.

          I think…I don’t know…but I think a strongly worded passionate anti-intervention stance coupled with a very strong pro-military, but strictly for defense, stance would be the most popular position now. But, it has to be articulated, and not just inferred because of lack of decision making.

          1. It seems a little off to be against state violence, but be perfectly okay with the establishment of states 100% predicated on violence that will continue to use such to crush all opposition.

            “The state is awful when it uses its power to trample on us. However, that state over there is trampling on people over there, and thus is not my problem.” Seems just a little cold.

            Granted, it sounds like I’m advocating whacking every troop of psychos that comes to power until a non-psycho shows up, and maybe that’s so. Is the only alternative covering your ears to block the screams of slaughtered innocents and saying “la la la la, not my problem!”?

            Not everyone who wants to help the defenseless is a bloodthirsty warmonger, despite what some people might tell you.

            (Although, my ideal solution would be some NGO group that’s willing to arrange “accidents” for the likes of ISIS and then fade away.)

  21. Well, clearly, if there is any truth to these accusations that Hillary is a war monger, she can’t get the democratic nomination since all liberals are anti-war. Right?

  22. I think she’s overcompensating because she rode to power on Bill’s coattails and is self-loathing because she couldn’t do it on her own. Not because she’s a woman, but because everything she touches turns to shit. She invariably zigs when she should zag, and I don’t think it’s because she wants to screw things up. She’s just not that bright or a good strategist. She’s power-hungry and she had to marry a charismatic redneck to get some.

    1. In another reality, her name is “Cersei”.

  23. What Nader is actually commenting on is not about what effect these various female leaders’ “lady bits” (and let’s find another phrase for it, okay?) actually have but about how some female leaders’ act out of fear of what some people assume their femaleness means for their ability to lead in war.

    What effect do they have? I don’t know. I do know Rudyard Kipling believed he did:

    She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
    As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
    And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
    Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

    She is wedded to convictions ? in default of grosser ties;
    Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies! ?
    He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
    Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

    — part of “The Female of the Species”, 1911

    http://www.heretical.com/miscella/kipling1.html

  24. Nader may be 100% right.

    But then again, we don’t know all the Clinton connections. Maybe they’re in bed with the war materiel makers and just view war, slaughter and destruction as “good business” for their friends.

  25. Would somebody please help Ralph into the Corvair for his trip to the rest home?

  26. Ralph Nader is still alive?

  27. But really…did he just say women can’t get hardons for war?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.