We need to forget the Clinton Years

NOTE -- I posted this in response to another thread, but decided that it deserved its own airing after typing it.

I'm going to keep saying this until I turn blue, and have everyone on this site against me. I think that the Clinton years were perhaps the worst thing, long-term, for the Democratic Party. And before anyone responds with blind fury, let me explain.

With the Clinton years, the Democratic Party adopted a new attitude toward big business. It began to champion free trade (i.e. NAFTA). It supported the push for deregulation of the telecom industry (1996 Telecommunications Deregulations Act, pushed by Clinton). It sought economic guidance from Wall Street bigwigs (Robert Rubin) as opposed to labor and traditional friends of labor. It made the conscious decision to court corporate cash in order to try and overcome the Republicans in fundraising.

Throughout all of this, the brunt of the Democrats' newfound friendship with Corporate America was borne by the American worker. These were the people who were taught that if they played by the rules and worked hard, that they would be OK. They were betrayed in this. Every time jobs were shifted overseas, it wasn't the Bob Rubins of the world seeing their health benefits disappear, savings dry up, and job opportunities diminish. Hell, the Bob Rubins of the world made boatloads of money off of this. No, it was this honest, trusting American worker who saw all this happen.

Of course, the Republicans were just as complicit in all of this -- probably more so. But with the mouthpieces they had and the Democrats lacked, it was too easy for them to glide in and fill these people's heads full of places to lay their blame (liberals, Democrats, gays, blacks, and so on). Furthermore, they pointed out the emerging cultural liberalism of the Democrats and how it contrasted with the "values" that were prevalent in the heartland.

If the Democrats still had the card of economic populism, of standing on the side of the worker, they could have trumped this cultural conservatism. But they had already thrown that card away, in the process of cozying up with Corporate America. Therefore, they were caught relatively empty-handed, and had little left outside of a strategic retreat.

Bill Clinton won election and re-election due to several factors. One can cite the presence of Ross Perot in 1992. You could also cite dissatisfaction with an out-of-touch incumbent that same year. Also, Bob Dole was a less-than-appealing Presidential candidate. But perhaps more than anything else, Bill Clinton won these races on the sheer force of his overflowing charisma and his uncanny political instincts.

Charisma may get you elected, but it won't push through an agenda unless that agenda really speaks to people. That is where I draw the line between Clinton the politician and Clinton the leader. He was a brilliant politician, but I don't think he was much of a leader, an inspiring figure, because he had a deathly fear of bold propositions, choosing instead much safer stances. Therefore, much of the Clinton years -- especially from 1994-2000 -- could be best described as a strategic retreat in the face of a Republican onslaught. Granted, it was a quite well-executed retreat, and obviously better than all-out Republican rule in the immediate term(as we see now), but it was still a retreat.

The response of what Skinner termed the "center-left libertarian" wing of the party, typified by the Democratic Leadership Council, however, was to describe this as "winning". It sought to promote this kind of embrace of corporate power while proposing "nibbling around the edges" policy initiatives as a winning formula. My belief is that Bill Clinton was elected twice, largely IN SPITE OF this formula, due to the aforementioned reasons.

In the midst of all of this, with the seizure of the "values" card by the Republicans and the abandonment of economic populism by the Democrats, the results are quite predictable. While there are promising happenings in localities and state houses in the country, on the national level the Republicans are in full control and the Democrats are adrift. The conservatives STILL view politics as a marathon race, while the Democrats STILL approach it as an electoral sprint every few years. Republicans appear to be the party of ideas because their ideas -- no matter how half-brained they are -- are always wrapped around central, emotional themes; while the Democrats largely react to Republican proposals or drift off into wonk-speak, expecting people to respond to policy initiatives described simply in pragmatic terms without any connection to greater values.

We'd better wise up to this trend, and fast. We'd better learn to re-embrace economic populism, and to play it up on the "values" end to the electorate. We'd better start coming down on the side of the worker, as opposed to talking about him while we continue to shill for the boss. We'd better do all of this, otherwise we'll be consigned to the dustbin of political history, preserved for viewing purposes only in a glass jar right beside the one labeled "Whigs".

Flame away.

I agree. Can we please also credit Clinton's charisma for a good portion of his success? The man could sell ice cubes to eskimos.

Clinton's public personality was what got him elected.

I'd be sitting there, nodding my head, then suddenly I'd start actually listening to what he was saying. Then I'd start saying to myself, "Wait a minute. This isn't right."

:kick:

I really want some thoughts on this. I'm surprised this post hasn't drawn any flames thus far!

I'm disappointed! :evilgrin:

Dunno, my lighter seems to have run out of gas. But let's try.

There are many lessons to be drawn from the Clinton years, and it would be folly to forget any of them. The lesson I think about is the necessity of keeping certain promises. There were a number of things Clinton promised to do if elected that he punted on-- gays in the military being an early and obvious example. Maybe he shouldn't have made the promise, but, having done so, he should have pushed harder on the Joint Chiefs to come up with a less mealymouthed compromise than "Don't Ask Don't Tell," which was as unsatisfactory a straddle as the Bush43 stem cell accommodation, and pleased nobody.

Mrs. Squeech is still sore at him for breaking his promise to pardon Leonard Peltier. (She has some Native American ancestry.)

I'm still trying to figure out what I really think about the health insurance debacle, but I don't think mapping it out in such detail within the White House task force was a good idea. Seems to me LBJ would have passed it by lobbying and logrolling within the Senate-- going to the various power brokers and saying What do you need to make this happen? and trading off structural reforms and/or tax credits until there was a package with everybody's fingerprints and everybody's vote. Unsavory, perhaps, but the old saw about those who like sausage still applies. (And don't think for a minute that Tom DeLay doesn't do it the same way; he only looks superhuman if you don't follow the money.) Funny, we no longer think legislators can make the leap to national office, but ex-senators Johnson and Kennedy were more effective at getting their programs passed than ex-governors like Carter and Clinton (and, yes, Reagan)-- understanding the process seems to count for something.

I dunno, that's all I can think of right now. This thread's probably fallen off the page by now anyway...

Seriously, though -- I wasn't talking about forgetting the Clinton years in regards to lessons to be learned from them. I'm all for that. I was talking about forgetting them in the sense of them being some kind of template for long-term success. I think they're quite the opposite.

The "gays in the military" uproar was so unnecessary. Truman integrated the military racially by telling the Joint Chiefs of Staff that anyone who objected would be court-martialed for insubordination, and that was the end of that.

The problem with Clinton's health proposal was that he tried to preserve a role for the insurance companies.

It was just another example of his being too wishy washy with the right wing, and over the years I've learned that being wishy washy with the right wing is tantamount to having a "kick me" sign on your butt.

I just can't.

Is there anyone on our side who hasn't been attacked yet?

He was the master of the political strategic retreat, little more IMHO.

versus who any pub would have, that's enough to make him a hero to me.

John Paul Stevens -- nominated by Gerald Ford
David Souter -- nominated by GHW Bush

And let's not forget the dean of liberal justices, Earl Warren, a Republican Governor of CA and Eisenhower nominee.

But as far as the Reagan/GW Bush nominees would go, I'd have to agree with you.

I told a friend from Italy that America had anti-sodomy laws and he couldn't believe it...

That's how backwards we were....

and AWOL supported Texas's anti-sodomy laws when he was governor...

And I don't want to put forth the impression that I thought the Clinton years were a total waste, or that nothing good came out of them. Rather, I often view them as a holding pattern, a wasted opportunity, that is somehow presented as a winning strategy when it was more about just slowing down the Republican onslaught a little bit without any inkling of a counteroffensive in return.

Hell, look at everything we do through that prism...


We are in a reactionary mode now and unable to even hold the little ground we have left....

We are in a reactionary mode now and unable to even hold the little ground we have left....

That's what the Clinton "strategic retreat" model has led to. That's what the selling out of the working class, in favor of corporate interests and "free trade" has led to. That's what being afraid to offer forth bold proposals and try to sell them has led to.

I will say straight out that we all deserve part of the blame for this. Rather than treating the electoral process as a marathon battle of ideas, we characterized it as a quick sprint in which winning office was the end-all, be-all. It's clear that the conservatives have been much more savvy on strategy than we have.

My statement is simply that the Clinton strategy, the strategy still promoted by many of his supporters and former administration officials, is a continuation of this "sprint without ideas" method that has been proven to be a disastrous failure in the long-term.

love to one anoter..


that's for starters...

Clinton also pushed for DOMA and did the mealymouthed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise that still resulted in a virulent anti-gay attitude remaining in the Armed Forces.

Destroyed His Presidency before it started...


They stole his fucking honeymoon over the issue...

As far as DOMA Clinton wasn't alone... Such liberal luminaries as Bobby Byrd and Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA...

Hell, John Kerry was only one of a dozen senators to oppose it...

The Republican reaction to gays in the military was quite predictable. I'm certain that the Dixiecrat reaction to full integration by Harry Truman was much the same. The difference lies in how that reaction was dealt with.

I'm aware that not nearly enough Senators had the courage to vote against DOMA. Wellstone addressed it in is autobiography as the worst vote he ever made in his career. I'd hardly call Robert "Mr. Coal booster anti-environmentalist pork barreler" Byrd a "liberal luminary". He's a conservative Democrat and always has been.

I'm just saying that Clinton's reaction on these issues, as his advice to Kerry to support anti-gay marriage initiatives, is consistent. It's a strategic retreat in the face of a foe that will only take it as reason for advance.

Clinton's advice to Kerry to embrace the anti gay marriage amendments was morally and strategically flawed...

It could not be justified on either moral or prudential grounds....

That being said Clinton was a firewall... The firewall is gone and I am afraid I might never see another Democratic president in my lifetime if not for a good long while and I tremble at the prospect....

A rising tide will lift all boats, if done wisely. That's the Clinton direction. Jobs were going overseas when Clinton was in office, but those were offset by massive job creation and training here at home.

With the absence of sound economic policy, the workers are forced to adapt. What else can you do when your job goes to Mexico? But the corporations are not forced to make any meaningful changes. They never cared about the workers. Who didn't know that? As long as the economy is good, that's not such a big deal. All you gotta do is quit and find another job. But now, its a hell of a big deal.

You can't blame this one on Clinton. Let's blame the corporate interests, the horrible Bush economic policy, and above all, the workers who were stupid enough to vote for Bush because he goes to fucking church. (Pardon my french)

President In Our Lifetime

I thought it was an honest look at some of the shifts in the Party he helped to perpetuate, and where those shifts have taken us.

Are you, personally, happy with the state of the Democratic Party right now? Do you think we're on the right track? Or would it rather be wise to look at what we've been doing with an unbiased eye, free from the Clintonmania that can run so prevalent, and make a judgement on how we can win again for the LONG TERM?

too soon.

Just look at how many times his name comes up on this forum.

"Bill Clinton for Sec. of State!"
"Bill Clinton for Kerry's running mate!"
"Bill Clinton for Sec Gen of the UN!"
"Bill Clinton for Mayor of NYC!"
"Bill Clinton for Dog Catcher in Chappaqua, NY!"

It's like a cult of personality. I've never seen it as being about anything besides charisma, plain and simple. But when it comes to policy and long-term strategy, I think we should honestly evaluate his terms in office. Personally, my evaluation doesn't come out too much ahead.

But that's just my opinion, and you have yours, which may be different and that's fine. But at least we're discussing it, which can only be a positive.

I believe in letting the private sector deliver the goods markets can deliver best and the public sector deliver the goods it can deliver best....

Did you like the 1996 Telecom deregulation giveaway?

Did you like the fact that he avoided raising CAFE standards like the plague?

I'm all for allowing business to compete on a level playing field. I'm also all for government being an advocate of workers and people first. My impression of Clinton's economic policies was that, while certainly better than current policies, they were too geared toward satisfying corporate interests at the expense of workers (i.e. NAFTA). I also think he got more credit than he deserved for being in office during a tech boom.

And one last thing -- my opinion is that our public sector is woefully inadequate in this country. If you've never read it, I'd highly recommend The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith. Although written in the 1950's, I believe it shines a spotlight on the danger of embracing the private sector overzealously, something that I felt was done during the Clinton years.

Gore's baby.

Stiglitz generally liked Clinton, but hated Treasury and doesn't seem to fond of Gore. I'm not finished with the book, however. Maybe he does ultimately blame Clinton.

Krugman really liked Clinton too, but I don't tend to agree with him on that end.

I'm much more trustful of the likes of John Kenneth Galbraith for economic advice. It perks my ears up when someone CHALLENGES the conventional wisdom (a term coined by JKG) rather than only tweaking it.

maybe because it has to do with women's issues, but it was the wave of the pro-choice movement that Clinton sailed into office on.

Democrats have no moral authority on economic issues, because they're almost as complicit at selling out the working class to the corporate masters as the Republicans are.

We sounded pretty weak bitching about outsourcing during the recent campaign, when Clinton signed NAFTA into law and most Democrats voted for it.

Democrats used to enjoy broad support because they really, honestly stood for the people against the powerful. Now, we don't have the same credibility we once did. And Clinton is part of the reason.

Don't get me wrong, Clinton was eight thousand times the President that * is, but I never really liked his economic policy.

but there has to be programs to help people who lose their jobs because of dislocations it causes...

The investor-state clause is a complete sham. Mexico was forced to revise its Constitution, outlawing communal ownership of land. The entire Chiapas region was opened up to US and Canadian timber, agricultural and pharmaceutical companies as the Zapatistas were forcibly evicted from the land they had farmed for generations. Corn farming in Mexico collapsed due to subsidized imports from US agribusiness. Mexico was forced to accept the outlaw of technology transfers as part of the deal, condemning it to perpetual status as a low-wage assembly shop. Wages in Mexico actually FELL under NAFTA -- same as in the US and Canada -- because so many farmers were displaced it led to a glut of labor in the cities and border regions.

NAFTA contained absolutely ZERO provisions regarding the environment and worker rights, outside of the "tantamount to expropriation" phrase in Chapter 11, better known as the above-mentioned "investor-state clause".

This is just a start. I could go on if you would like. I've lobbied Congresspeople on this issue. NAFTA was a complete betrayal of the American worker and the American public (as well as the workers and public in Mexico and Canada), and Bill Clinton boosted it.

Free trade is not in and of itself a bad thing. Encouraging corporations to outsource is. Not having environmental and labor standards across the board is.

but I can't see any way that the first two-term Dem presidency since FDR is a bad thing. I like winning a helluva lot more than losing.

I like winning too. I don't like losing. However, I also recognize that winning a singular battle can sometimes result in losing the greater war, if that singular battle comes at too great a cost. I also recognize that a strategic retreat is not necessarily "winning".

Clinton quite possibly may be the last Democratic president in our lifetimes...

All I'm looking for is an honest exchange of ideas and opinions. You've been more than forthcoming in that regard thus far, and you've actually opened my mind about several considerations regarding courts and court decisions.

I tend to be challenging to those who don't really address the body of my post. It's my nature. I'm not really getting "worked up", just interested in a healthy and vigorous exchange.