How did I miss this? Seems so obvious. So obvious. But I forget that most people are about most things much more emotion-driven than I am.
Note that I am not saying that I am some rational maximizer. However even when I was a little kid, I realized I was not very emotional and had to spend those emotions on things that really mattered. That’s just my personality and I’ve been aware of that since I was five at least.
Anyway, here’s what I missed: most of the weirdo fact-savaging from people like Kevin Drum, Lance Mannion, Charles Blow, Sarah Kendzior and Paul Krugman in their support of Clinton is just plain old 90s nostalgia. And life was comparatively good then, and people of that age (Sarah Kendzior fits this frame less, but still does I think) associate both Clintons with that relatively-idyllic period — even though all of that was in spite of the Clintons rather than because of them.
And I even understand — jobs were really easy to get then compared to now. The country seemed to be ascendant. Communism was vanquished. Poverty was falling. People were getting rich left and right on dot-coms and tech plays. People were flush. Crime was way down. Things did truly feel very optimistic, like we were making progress on many fronts.
So I understand Clinton people, because I comprehend this now too: there is nothing policy-related that really matters to you about Hillary (as is true of 80% of people all of the time), and there are no logical arguments for or against Clinton that can sway you.
Because it’s just not about that.
It’s about how much better living in the 1990s felt than how it feels now. Which it did in nearly every way, I agree. I remember that sense of hope very well. Clinton won’t bring that back — it ain’t coming back — but I can understand how it might feel like she could.
I missed the bleeding obvious. But at least I got it now.