Answered on Quora: “Would Republicans hate Hillary Clinton if not for HillaryCare?”
The human animal is a hierarchical one, but how and whether a man or a woman acquiesces (or readily assents) to any particular Alpha leader depends a great deal on … sexual style.
Bill Clinton’s sexual style seems “caring” and non-threatening to left tribalists, but comes off as predatory and insincere to right tribals. His extra-marital dalliances served as a straightforward affront to those of conservative temper, who have stronger commitments to monogamy than do those on the left. No surprise there, since those on the left have some grounds to claim the sexual revolution as legitimately and primarily theirs.
William Jefferson’s wife is a much colder creature, in no way easy to accept by anyone. Still, her leftist and feminist shibboleths please left tribals, while they offend rightists. Further, her apparently open marriage and tight political allegiance with her husband seems calculating and downright malign to those who were offended by him.
So of course the hatred for Hillary runs deep.
HillaryCare offended those of a more conservative temper not simply because it was more socialistic than later ObamaCare, but also because it was a major policy change constructed mostly — and quite deliberately — in secret. Hillary loves secrecy and working “behind the scenes” even unto this day, as the email server scandal continues to balloon out of all proportion.
This shows that Hillary has no real talent for democratic co-operation or compromise.
She can compromise, sure, but the compromises are all back-room deals, usually made with big companies and monied interests. They smack of corruption in more than one way. From cattle future trades to the illegal support she regularly receives from big corporations (one of my relatives boasted, once, being paid by a major pharmaceutical to “give” her campaign money), Hillary appears as nothing other than a “player,” a deceitful manipulator of interests; she is probably the most obviously corrupt pol of our time.
What she is, in fine, is an imperial politician, better suited to an ancient royal court or a modern totalitarian dictatorship than a constitutional republic.
The simple fact that her supporters don’t see this as a problem strikes her opponents as not merely bizarre, but as an indicator of how lost the progressive cause has become.
It is best to see the distrust of HillaryCare as merely emblematic, not constitutive, of her opposition’s deep distrust and loathing for The woman herself.