|Marilyn Monroe doctrine: "Talk softly but carry a lipstick."|
I thought of Velikovsky's, "World's in Collision", the other night.
I was watching the DNC's extravaganza of a convention. And with The Red Party's Donald's promise, shallow as it is, that, "I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens", coupled with the Blue Democratic Party's nomination of everybody's favorite War-monger, Hillary Clinton, the two party's have apparently swapped stances.
Neither of our three female Secretaries of State have walked softly. Preferring the pleasure of swinging a big stick to walking softly, the latter being rather difficult in heels, given their clickety-clackety nature.
This is a perfect demonstration of the Marilyn Monroe Doctrine, the thesis that women, like men of small size who are therefore more aggressively in your face, purportedly to compensate for their diminutive stature and the resultant dismissive consideration given to their concerns, the Marilyn Monroe Doctrine is defined as the female propensity to overcompensate in a like manner for their lack of male bravado.
Thus does the equation Hawkish = Manly come into play in their dealings with foreign affairs, resulting in the appearance that instead of a Secretary of State and a Secretary of
But despite the fact that it might be easier to see the ridiculousness of it when your opponent is more familiar with batting an eyelash than a baseball, the US and its much-vaunted military is in much the same position. It postures more and more unconvincingly behind a wall of nukes it can never use. A female posturing in the same way as a male would is very similar to how we wield our nuclear arsenal as an instrument of Terror, which none other than Condoleeza Rice did, only, rather than threatening foreign states with it, she aimed it directly at the head of the American public by ominously asking: "We wouldn't want that smoking gun to come in the shape of a mushroom cloud, now would we?" She thereby used the prospect of a nuclear nightmare to hold the US citizenry hostage to her monomaniacal intent to attack Iraq. An obsession spelled out in the PNAC, to which she was a signatory and which strongly urged an invasion of an already prostrate (from a decade of sanctions that included US-enforced No-Fly zones) Iraq. Similarly, with the death of half a million children from sanctions, a figure with which the then-Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, found no reason to quibble, while she opined that yes, yes she believed the sanctions were worth it. On the subject of what exactly they accomplished that made them worth it, however, the good Secretary was less forthcoming.
Now we're faced with the prospect of having a President who, while holding the position of Secretary of State watched as Syria became unhinged, Egypt turned into a military dictatorship, and cheered Libya's descension into chaos, its leader ignominiously murdered by the howling dogs of War. Yet her only comment from her august position of power was, "We came, we saw, he died", while she laughed as though the murder of foreign heads of state was oh so much fun. Perhaps it is simply my lack of imagination, but I can't think of one male Democrat that would have the sangfroid to make such a heartless comment.
Don't get me wrong. It isn't that she's female that I protest. It's the childish illusion proffered that by electing a female leader we will become a kinder gentler nation. But it's not females that die in vast numbers during War, it is always the men. The women suffer more, but that's because - oh yeah - they're alive! Unlike The Don, Hillary not only wants the job, she's qualified and she's worked hard for it, and there's something to be said for a candidate that wants to actually run the government, as opposed to all these Republican pseudo-reformers with their evangelical zeal to sweep into office and fix it.
So perhaps the most frightening aspect of a Hillary victory, over and above having to look forward to more coverage of daughter Chelsea (a female of repellent aspect remotely attached to miseducation), is the precedent she sets. After all, Senator, presidential candidacy, Secretary of State, candidacy again, then Presidency, is a sequence currently potentially shared by only one other Democrat - shudder- John Kerry!