Hillary Has a Daddy Problem

     "I wonder if it’s possible to be a Republican and a Christian at the same time."
                                                                     - Hillary Clinton

I have often wondered why Hillary has such a visceral hate for Republicans. When she goes on a political tirade she saves her most vitriolic verbal firepower for Republicans. Her irrational anger at such a generalized group is in stark contrast with her so often stated desire to 'bring people together,' that I think there is something much deeper going on than just political rhetoric.

I think she has a 'Daddy' problem.

Why would a candidate for the office of President of a country with deep Christian roots, make such an insulting and inflammatory suggestion? Her political handlers either failed to control her, or she simply doesn't care because she can't control the urge to expel her pent-up anger at the memory of her Republican dad. If she really believes her statement, what does that say about half the population of the country? Is she trashing Christians or Republicans, because you can't have it both ways, can you?

Remember, her dad Hugh was a rock-ribbed Taft-era Republican that railed against taxes, unions and government aid programs. Historic documents, and to some degree even Hillary's own biography, indicate Hugh was also abusive. As a young high school and early college student, Hillary was also a Republican. At some point in college, she went the other way. Big time.

Could that have been a direct rejection of her father?

She is definitely an overachiever, sometimes an indicator of some childhood conflict. She never misses the chance to point out that she is, in case you missed it, a women. The kind of gender insecurity often displayed by victims of childhood abuse.

She is considered a student of Saul Alinsky, author of the handbook for leftist activists, 'Rules for Radicals.'. He was the inspiration for her Senior Thesis (the one she suppressed for many years). While in college, she showed immense anger at the 'status quo' while participating in campus campaigns for student and minority rights in the late 60's. One of Alinsky's primary rules for political mobilization was the need to have 'an enemy.' It wasn't enough to represent people's problems and demands for government action. According to Alinsky, to properly activate the populace, to achieve real political power, one must have an enemy to play, to use to create an emotional fervor from the electorate. To mobilize and to radicalize, leaders need a straw dog to beat.

Hillary wrote, “Alinsky argues that those who wish to change circumstances must develop a mass-based organization and be prepared for conflict….for him, conflict is the route to power.”

As she again runs for the Presidency, Hillary is making right leaning conservatives, overwhelmingly religious, the target of her assault on perceived injustice and repression, especially against women. Hillary, when she addresses her familiar and sycophantic base, rails against Republicans, sometimes in an unrestrained and over the top rant. She speaks of them with the kind of anger and fervor her opponents save for terrorists. Or abusive men.

Is it possible Hillary uses her resentment of her Father as motivation?

I know from personal experience that some people harbor deep seated anger, resentment and fear from childhood abuse patterns. They can suppress these anxieties during most everyday activities, but they occasionally surface in times of emotional or psychological stress. Sometimes the symptoms are exposed in subtle, unintended phrases that imply irrational hostility towards a person or thing that is perceived as a substitute or equivalent to the source of the anger.

And they can sometimes channel that emotion for inspiration.

But to suggest Republicans can't be Christians? Why, because of the stereotype of Republicans as mostly angry white men, who beat their wives and girlfriends, who drive gasoline eating pick-up trucks with shotgun racks, that hate blacks and homosexuals, fit conveniently with her repressed anger over the dismissive attitude and absence of love she felt from her dad?

I know what she is implying, that Republicans have no heart, and Christians do. But doesn't that trivialize the core beliefs of Republicans? That God has given all people the tools to be self sufficient, to help one another, to not rely on government or any other force to provide for the family. That freedom is God-given but comes with responsibilities, to both the individual and to society. The Republican platform that government is owned by and should forever remain subservient to the citizen, and that marriage and the family is the foundation for the continuation of the human race...

And that Human Life is sacrosanct.

Uh oh, that might just explain everything, because unlike her earlier years in the public limelight, she is now Pro Choice! She claims that she has had an awakening, that she is now the champion of choice because women should be in complete control of what happens with their bodies.

I can sympathize with women who were abused as children by their father. It definitely leaves scars, and it is not their fault. Childhood abuse robs kids of their innocence, and can affect their entire lives negatively. It is a real affliction and I don't mean to marginalize the impact, but as a national leader, it is incumbent upon her to recognize that nearly half of the country, no matter what the issue is, is not going to be in complete harmony with her perception of the problem or the solution. And that nearly half of the voters are men. Mostly good men. Men who work hard, who sacrifice to provide for, protect and cherish their families and their wives. Men who do not abuse children, or relegate women to a second class position in their life.

So it would behoove Hillary to recognize that though men and women do have differences, as do people of religion, they are all Americans too.

It is the job of our leaders to reconcile those conflicts, not to exacerbate them. It is hard to take her claim to be 'Everyday American's Champion' seriously when she so indifferently dismisses the fundamental belief systems of nearly half of the United States population.