{"id":8676,"date":"2016-11-14T01:21:15","date_gmt":"2016-11-14T09:21:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=8676"},"modified":"2020-11-07T02:15:43","modified_gmt":"2020-11-07T10:15:43","slug":"evita","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=8676","title":{"rendered":"Evita"},"content":{"rendered":"

A few years ago, in the title of an entry discussing the implications for the world of the failing health of Hugo Chávez<\/a>, I alluded to a motto that ends leave a beautiful corpse<\/q>[1]<\/span>. That entry<\/a> considered an observed practice:<\/p>

When a charismatic leader dies aburptly while still in power, his or her supporters quickly begin building a mythology of what would have been accomplished had he or she lived.<\/blockquote>

I drew attention to how this mythologizing bears upon social policy:<\/p>

The mythological episode of such leadership is treated as having the same standing for purposes of comparison as does historical fact. When an opponent tries to construct an argument founded on logic<\/em> and general<\/em> fact against policies associated with that leader, supporters treat the mythology as if<\/em> it is a disproof by counter-example. What\u2019s really happening then is that Faith<\/em> is being mistaken for empirical data<\/em>.<\/blockquote>

While death<\/em> significantly amplifies the power of the mythologizing of a leader who was not given full opportunity to effect the programmes that he or she chose, death isn't essential for there to be some mythologizing; I noted that there was a developing narrative of what President Obama would have<\/em> done had his party retained a majority in both chambers of Congress for the whole of his terms.<\/p>

As it happens, charisma<\/em> is also inessential, though it very much helps. And an odd substitute for direct charisma has been demonstrated. Barack Obama inflamed so much inverted narcissism<\/span> on the part of his followers that a great many of them chose to treat his successor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as if she were magnificent<\/em> though she is signally lacking in charisma.<\/p>

At the same time, her health is failing her, and had she been elected to the Presidency, she would not likely have served through a full term. There would have been an odd sort of race between how rapidly she did things that repelled those who had been her supporters, and when she left office. Depending upon the outcome of that race, she might have left a beautiful corpse<\/span>.<\/p>

But Ms Clinton has lost the race for Presidential Electors. Although a few of her supporters cling to an implausible hope that the Electoral College will not merely turn its back on the detestable Donald John Trump but will elect Clinton (as opposed to some Republican other than Trump), she will not be President. And the mythologizing is already under-way, even to the level of having Ms Clinton imagined as rather prettier than she is. \"[image<\/p>

One does not have to regard Mr Trump as even tolerable<\/em> to resist the mythologizing and to see Ms Clinton for what she has been. She has repeatedly been one of the people causing the United States military to engage in the slaughter of innocent people, for stated goals that haven't been obtained because they haven't been obtainable. She has engaged in calculated support of domestic policies such as the War of Drugs<\/span> and aggressive incarceration policies that have literally led to many thousands of deaths and to the ruin of many thousands of other lives. She and her husband have got rich exactly as brokers of political influence. She has privately spoken against some policies as corrosive while publicly supporting them — or vice versa<\/span> — depending upon the expected flow of dollars and of votes. She has casually disregarded laws, in the expectation (thus far vindicated) that her connections will insulate her from being charged, let alone convicted.<\/p>

If Ms Clinton is to be made into a beautiful corpse<\/span>, it is rather fitting that this transformation be effected while she is undead<\/span>.<\/p>

[1]<\/span> In full, the motto is Live fast; die young; leave a beautiful corpse.<\/q> It is an elaboration of an earlier motto of live fast and die young<\/q>. A popular variant is Live fast; die young; leave a good-looking corpse.<\/q><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A few years ago, in the title of an entry discussing the implications for the world of the failing health of Hugo Chávez, I alluded to a motto that ends leave a beautiful corpse[1]. That entry considered an observed practice: When a charismatic leader dies aburptly while still in power, his or her supporters quickly […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,318,9,104,4],"tags":[135,1164,43,158,1430,1429,45,1427],"class_list":["post-8676","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-ethics-philosophy","category-ideology-philosophy","category-news","category-public","tag-barack-obama","tag-charisma","tag-clinton","tag-hillary-clinton","tag-hillary-rodham-clinton","tag-inverted-narcissism","tag-obama","tag-trump"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8676","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8676"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8676\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11474,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8676\/revisions\/11474"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8676"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8676"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8676"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}