Stanley Fish Hates Hating Hillary

I would love to write a larger piece on Stanley Fish.  I think he has a seductive intelligence which, more often than not, comes to the commonest conclusion in a roundabout (enough) way which makes the obvious appear to be real thought.  I would love to write something about how easy it is for a man who made his money in the humanities to write about how worthless they are, even if it makes him look like a fraud or an opportunist, because it ultimately makes him look like a loner and a cultured free-thinker.  I would try to understand his admonishing the independent voter who still holds true to their own judgement (vs. two very similar parties) in spite of their disenfranchisement in many primaries.  I might also like to write a piece about how subjective his literary criticism is (how is Stanley Fish's mood when reading The Tempest of any interest to anyone but Stanley Fish).  I'd like to seem even-handed by saying I agree with some of his thoughts on the New Museum.  He's an interesting man and he probably deserves a larger piece but I can't and I won't write it as even I don't have quite enough free time. 

What I will write about, briefly, is All You Need is Hate, his recent piece on Hillary-hatred in the Times.   His central argument:  as people do hate Hillary for, example, being both a feminist and not a feminist, then this hatred is illogical like -- in an aside designed to place discussion almost off-limits -- anti-Semitism.  

My bones to pick with Fish:  I refuse to believe that a man of letters could forget that people is a plural noun.  It is quite reasonable for one person to dislike Hillary for her feminism (it's casual, crops up when convenient, etc.) and for another to dislike her own perception that her gender is a liability (signing the US into Iraq to avoid seeming weak).  A good working definition for hatred is 'a strong, emotional dislike outside of logic'.  In Think Again, Fish makes his points emotionally so that any shaky logic is placed outside the realm of thought: the only (re-)thinking Fish wants done is reading.  As falsely and easy as Hillary cried, or as easily as some Obama supporters cry racism when none is intended, Fish uses loaded language -- specifically conflating anti-Hillaryism with anti-Semitism -- in an attempt to spin, deceive and get under one's skin.  It does. 

Again, don't let others do your thinking for you no matter how well they write. 

Update:  I've been reading the comments on the Times' website.  Allow me to save you (a lot) of time and sketch a recurring theme beyond the spelling errors:  They hate her.  They being a stand-in for conservatives, Barack supporters, Republicans, the wrong kind of Democrats, independents, the same people who hate Barbara Streisand, and on it goes.  If you believe the thrust of Fish's essay, which I don't, then certainly we have an anti-anti-Hillary hatred essay coming out next Monday (sadly, not as well timed) on how irrational that concept is, ¿no?

Thanks to Turner for slugging through the piece before I'd proof read it and for telling me to do so.