General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBill Clinton, Impeachment and Hard Centrist programs.
I don't recall the timing of some of the more unpopular programs that were passed with Clinton's approval during the nineties. What comes to mind is NAFTA, the loosening of financial regulations and severe cutbacks in the Welfare rules. I am going to gander that most of them occurred during the second term when he was deep in alligators in Impeachment pressure.
So this triggers these questions:
(1) Did Impeachment pressure influence him to vote in a manner that was more in line with Republican desires? It certainly helped him in the Senate -- though let's face it, that was millions of dollars spent by the right to create an event that didn't exist when they started the investigation.
(2) The situation is different today, with a clear cause and effect leading to impeachment. But, in view of how business goes on despite impeachment proceedings, why is the press making hay about impeachment charges and support for a business initiative supported by both parties?
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)...before the 1994 midterms. After that, it was all about impeachment.
Baitball Blogger
(46,753 posts)Health program. And I believe he tried to introduce Gay Rights? Then things started go south after that as the right-wingers went nuts.
So bizarre. I always thought those bad Centrist ideas he supported were influenced by the Impeachment fury.
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)The Commodities Futures Modernization act came in 2000 (on the heels of the impeachment debacle), the Telecom act was 1996 (before the election).
Doremus
(7,261 posts)in 1994. "Welfare reform" aka The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (gosh that sounds so familiar) was in 1996.
Two examples of centrism at work.
Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)
Post removed
Baitball Blogger
(46,753 posts)I don't think labels are helpful in this day and age. You really have to look at the end game. Where are we headed? Who will be most impacted negatively or positively with the decisions made?
One thing that I pull from the past is the concept of triangulation. In a strange way, triangulation, which involved absorbing the other side's argument, was like a policy-driven version of projectionism. LOL! I'm sure that there is a brain tank somewhere that can make sense of that.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)The country was far less liberal in the 1990s than it's becoming nowadays. Democrats were getting reamed at the national level and Republican, 'kill big government' politics was dominating the era. Greed is good, after all, and the American people wanted to be greedy. Clinton would not have succeeded as a president, let alone a candidate, if he wasn't a moderate.
But even by 1990s standards, Clinton wasn't what one would consider a moderate Republican. Maybe the 1960s era Republicans - but not the 80s or 90s era Republicans. The party was running the moderates out and replacing them with Newt Gingrich clones who worked to turn the federal government into a right-wing dream that still dominates today.
Clinton also had to go up against talk radio, which poisoned politics and bred the type of hate we're witnessing today. The 1990s, while a generally peaceful time internationally, was ripe with domestic strife from crazy right-wing groups like the militias, Eric Rudolph, who was going around bombing abortion clinics (and had supporters!), Waco, Ruby Ridge, and, of course, Oklahoma City.
Clinton had to navigate all that. I don't know if any Democrat at that time, especially a very liberal one, would have been able to.
Baitball Blogger
(46,753 posts)I do remember my initial reaction when I saw Newt Gingrich's crazy revolution is that we were pissing away the peace dividend.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Clinton was "cool", and much younger than Bush Sr. He also played the saxophone. But his policies are the only thing we should judge him on, not this crafted image of coolness.