We Forget What It Was Really Like Under the Clintons

[ProudDad]

Twelve days before the Iowa caucuses, the New York Times Magazine cover, in large white letters on a deep black background, carried the single word title of its lead article: Clintonism. In the article Matt Bai, the Times reporter on all things Democratic, with a big D, made one undeniable assertion and two highly debatable ones.

Bai's contention that Bill Clinton's "wife's fortunes are bound up with his, and vice versa" is incontestable. The primaries and even more so the general election, if Hillary is the nominee, will be a referendum less on Hillary than on Clintonism, the philosophy and strategy that guided the White House for eight years. Hillary clearly welcomes such a prospect, as demonstrated by her constantly reminding voters that she was "deeply involved in being part of the Clinton team."

Bai's much more problematic assertions involve his evaluation of the nature and impact of Clintonism. Bai begins by mocking "Clinton's critics on the left" for displaying "a stunning lack of historical perspective." Yet it is Bai, who demonstrates a remarkable lack of historical knowledge, a dangerous shortcoming for a reporter with his portfolio.

The most glaring example is Bai's bizarre assertion that Clinton "almost single-handedly pulled the Democratic Party back from its slide into irrelevance." The historical fact is that when Clinton took office, the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and a majority of state governorships. By the time he left office, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and two-thirds of the governorships. By the numbers, it was Clintonism that relegated the Democratic Party to the shadows.

http://www.alternet.org/story/72336/

[jgraz]

1. We haven't forgotten

There are a lot of people with a lot invested in rewriting history.

[suston96]

2. Yeah, who wants balanced budgets and surpluses and 20 million new jobs and....

....ah, ferget it!

[ProudDad]

3. And lower actual wages

And Outsourcing...

And no safety net...

And Faux News...

And Clear Channel...

and still no Health Care...



"Bai quotes Jonathan Cowan, of the Third Way, "the next iteration of the D.L.C." As Bai approvingly describes it, "Clinton's politics have basically become the DNA of Democrats seeking the White House, and it's almost certain that they would all govern from that Clintonian center if they actually became president." I desperately hope that is not the case. In the 2008 primary and general election, a key question is, "How can we get back what we have lost without confronting those who took it?" To my mind, the only candidate who seems to understand that is John Edwards, who seems to represent Democratic DNA still untouched by Clintonism's experiment in genetic engineering."

[rinsd]

29. Bill Clinton created Faux News?

"And no safety net..."

Paying down the debt and an SS surplus???

"and still no Health Care..."

No mention of SCHIP?

"To my mind, the only candidate who seems to understand that is John Edwards, who seems to represent Democratic DNA still untouched by Clintonism's experiment in genetic engineering."

Yes a charter member of the New Democrats the DLC Senate wing is untouched!

Its funny how one gets amnesia about certain things.

[Township75]

4. Are those 20 million jobs in Mexico? Thanks for NAFTA...

he could have kept the dot-com jobs too.

Clinton went to the right, and the party went with him, and then disintegrated. Thank goodness there are a few Dems that might pull it back together.

[Little Star]

55. Hillary said on tv a while back that she realizes there are problems

with NAFTA and she intends to fix it.

[yourout]

7. If your going to quote the good you also need to quote the bad.....NAFTA, Telecom, Monica, loss ....

of Congress.

The 90's were good I want the next 8 years to be better....

[LostinVA]

28. "Monica"???

Whatthefuckever.

[Little Star]

56. Yeah, I too thought that was a repug tune. Monica, Monica.

[1corona4u]

15. Yeah...

who wants to have that? Jobs, who needs them....

[racaulk]

I love that graph!

Interesting that the two highest numbers both came under Clinton, and two of the three lowest numbers came from a President named Bush.

Funny that, huh? :)

[jasmine621]

62. All that peace and prosperity....we sure can't stand to have that repeated.

It's un-American.

[sandnsea]

17. Working people's FICA money that went to the rich n/t

[emilyg]

26. Ido. I really do.

[bobbolink]

27. BUT, the muddleclass wants to ignore poor folk, and what he did to them.

[Anouka]

37. Preach.

It wasn't good for everyone, even though Clinton made folks feel good.



Is the Clinton presidency the other side of the coin of the Reagan presidency?

The Clintons have to be careful; any history can be revised. A lot of people hated FDR, hated him hated him hated him; but the war came along and now it's all good stuff.

If folks start looking back at the 90s -- particularly folks who barely remember it -- and going, 'what was the big deal?' after reconsidering the Clinton years, the Clintons have only themselves to blame for screwing up public perception of their legacy.

[slipslidingaway]

70. What of the One Trillion from the SS Trust fund? n/t

[tritsofme]

5. NixonFordReaganBush with a four year Carter interlude, do we remember what is was like before

the Clintons?

I certainly do.

[ProudDad]

13. Yes, just imagine what it could have been like

with a REAL Democrat in the W.H.?

[BootinUp]

39. Politics is not about facts, please don't wear your fingers

out for nothing. lol.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. IMO that wasn't all Clinton's fault, but a good example that the 90's weren't great

Clinton came in with no mandate and no coattails. His failure to pass health care reform was the spark that triggered our loss of Congress in 1994, but the underlaying factors were that we had a coalition that was being held together with duct tape and that part wasn't Clinton's fault.

As a result Clinton had no coalition to govern with and we got no real drastic reform. He did some good things like the family medical leave act and the economy was good, but I'd like to aim my sights higher than that.

Obama is winning by bringing new people into the party and Hillary is relying on people who supported her husband in the 90's. If we just rely on people that voted for Clinton in the 90's, we aren't going to have the coalition or the mandate to get health care reform or anything else that we want.

[ProudDad]

11. I will grant the possibility that

in his quest for power (their quest for power?) he was oblivious to the harm he was doing...

Not really a good reason to wish for clintonomics II is it? :shrug:

[gateley]

24. Dodd receives the real kudos for the FMLA. He's the one who worked so

hard to get it passed.

[Bonobo]

8. Clinton reset the middle so far to the right. Hard to forgive that for me.

[DesertFlower]

9. those years were very good for us.

hubby was getting bonuses averaging $40-50 thousand a year. now he's happy to have a job.

[ProudDad]

10. Way too small a sample (n/t)

[sandnsea]

19. Y2K? Computer expansion? n/t

[DesertFlower]

23. could be.

like i said he's thankful to have his job. if he didn't have a "special" skill, his job would have been outsourced years ago.

[sandnsea]

34. Y2K wasn't Clinton

We did pretty well on computers and upgrades too. We intentionally made the decision to move to the internet because we didn't see there being as much money in computers after Y2K. That's got nothing to do with Bill Clinton. Windows didn't either. Wiring the schools and govt did, but that was Al Gore's idea.

[DesertFlower]

38. i wasn't talking about clinton.

i was thinking "in general" that things may have changed and that's why the big bonuses stopped.

[xchrom]

12. it has very little to do with clintonism -- re the governorships

and both houses of congress and more to do with republicanism reaching a zenith or an apex if you will.

the miserable years when no democrat would identify themselves as ''liberal'' -- the contract on america -- lies about taxes that were bought hook line and sinker.

what pissed liberal voters about the clintons has to do with nafta, the democratic version of corporate cronyism, doma etc.

but i think the apex of the republick party was inevitable -- a sling shot from the reagan years, if you will.

[ProudDad]

14. Actually, that "movement" began in '64

after Goldwater had his ass handed to him...

The Godfather and early major funder of the right-wing conspiracy was Richard Mellon Scaife:

"The events of 1964 were a turning point for Scaife, and for American conservatives. Scaife was an alternate to the Republican Convention that chose Arizona Sen. Barry M. Goldwater as the party's presidential nominee, and he became an active contributor and supporter. He escorted Goldwater on the Scaife family airplane to California in July 1964 to attend the Bohemian Grove retreat, a boozy and confidential gathering of conservative, mostly wealthy men.

Confounded by Goldwater's devastating defeat that November, many conservatives concluded that they could only win an election in the future by matching their enemy's firepower. It was time, as a Scaife associate of that era put it, to wage "the war of ideas." Scaife enthusiastically adopted this view.

"We saw what the Democrats were doing and decided to do the mirror image, but do it better," this Scaife associate said. "In those days you had the American Civil Liberties Union, the government-supported legal corporations , a strong Democratic Party with strong labor support, the Brookings Institution, the New York Times and Washington Post and all these other people on the left – and nobody on the right." The idea was to correct that imbalance. "And the first idea was to copy what works."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm



Clinton just took the ideas and with the help of the DLC talked like a lib'ral but once elected (with a LOT of help from Ross Perot)...then acted like a worthy disciple and passed some shit that they could NEVER have gotten through without his help...

[xchrom]

25. and i would say the 70's and the formation -- with william f buckley and paul what's his name

of the heritage foundation.

bringing the lunacy of the crack pot from the university of chicago -- oh what was his name -- together with the brain power of conservative catholics.

all of which began to propel the lies about taxes and government and bringing together the emerging evangelical movement.

but the point being the modern march of the republick party has deep well thought out roots.

not has it gone away -- we have something of a roll now -- but the machines are still out there -- all working for a permanent republick party majority.

[madrchsod]

16. i have no respect for bill clinton

there is very little i can say good about him anymore

[fightindonkey]

18. If You Throw Bill Clinton Under The Bus, We're Really In Deep Shit

To say that the man who literally saved the party, and the country itself after all those years of Neocon Regan's wet dream of killing the working and middle class, you have a lot of never trying to rewrite history.

[EFerrari]

33. Clinton didn't "save" poor people, labor people, gay people.

Who did he save, exactly?

If he winds up under a bus, he'll just be joining a lot of us.

[LostinVA]

36. Nothing new on here today, alas....

[NCarolinawoman]

20. Having literally been pummeled by three hurricanes during the 90's,

I remember James Lee Witt, Clinton's cabinet appointee to be in charge of FEMA. Nobody did "disasters" better than Clinton's FEMA.

So I think of that first, ahead of any of the other stuff.

[rinsd]

21. I love sloppy conclusions

"The most glaring example is Bai's bizarre assertion that Clinton "almost single-handedly pulled the Democratic Party back from its slide into irrelevance." The historical fact is that when Clinton took office, the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and a majority of state governorships. By the time he left office, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and two-thirds of the governorships. By the numbers, it was Clintonism that relegated the Democratic Party to the shadows."

Yes because 1994 had nothing to do with massive Congressional scandals on the Dem side with a united GOP movement with false promises on the other.

It should also be noted that after 1994, the Dems made Congressional net gains every year until 2002.

[frogmarch]

22. Bill Clinton years = best years ever.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I really hate it when Dems eat their own.

[ProudDad]

44. Bullshit!!!

my small sample -- 4 layoffs from good computer jobs...

Outsourced...downsized...rightsized...

Savings gone to pay to exist.

and still no fucking health care...

[progressivebydesign]

46. Sorry you can't hold a job, dude! n/t

[BootinUp]

54. and its all Bills fault

is THAT your position?

[EFerrari]

30. I haven't forgotten. n/t

[no name no slogan]

31. Clinton was the best Republican president since Eisenhower

As a Republican, he gets a B+
As a Democrat, he gets a C-

[krabigirl]

32. I loved the 90s...

[EFerrari]

35. Laguna Beach didn't. n/t

[krabigirl]

48. I lived there in the 90s...it was fine. Better than now, after the hoopla over the MTV show.

It's very different now. I've moved to Irvine, though. Sigh. Need to change my info. Can't afford Laguna (lived in a tiny apt until we had kids.)

[struggle4progress]

40. "And as I watched him on the stage my hands were clenched in fists of rage"

President Clinton is a pleasant and articulate man, with a good mind and enormous energy: he appointed very competent people to administrative posts, and under ordinary circumstances would have been an entirely acceptable President

His attitudes and analyses, however, reflected nothing more than "conventional wisdom." His superlative ability to put together effective short-term coalitions and to compromise with opponents does not seem to have been balanced by much insight into the nature of the rightwing machine that had become increasingly aggressive since the Nixon era. He will certainly be remembered for his intelligence and willingness to master policy issues.

Unfortunately, he seems to have no great wellsprings of political courage. Again and again, his triangulations simultaneously saved his own political reputation and career, while effectively handing long term power to rightwing extremists: he supported the right wing's DOMA and so-called "welfare reform"; he supported the concentration of media monopolies; he supported the agreements like NAFTA making borders invisible to capital but not to the people affected by the capital. His civil rights legacy includes the tepid don't ask don't tell policy. The rightwing also used him to engineer the quiet death of the independent counsel statute, whose lack we so sorely feel today.

During much of his administration, many of us were screaming with rage, because the devastating longterm consequences of Clinton's conventional compromises were so immediately obvious -- and began to become ugly realities not long after he left office.

It will easy, of course, to identify Presidential candidates brighter, more competent, more energetic and more decent than the current White House resident. And it would probably be very difficult to find a Presidential candidate brighter, more competent, more energetic and more decent than Bill.

The United States has always been something of a dream and something of a work in progress. But dreadful challenges lie ahead. Any presidency, that resembled those we have suffered in the last quarter century (including Clinton's), would merely serve as a tragic signpost on a sad road the nation travels towards ruin

[Laelth]

41. Nicely said. Bravo!

:dem:

-Laelth

[Manifestor_of_Light]

42. The destruction of the middle class started with Reagan.

And it was accelerated in the 90s with Clinton and NAFTA, and jobs leaving.

Those good middle class jobs started evaporating in the 1990s for us educated people.

The best thing Clinton did was dig us out of that Republican deficit but he was not really a Democrat.

[struggle4progress]

43. Plenty of the scumbags got their foothold in the Nixon era

I don't intend to trash Clinton completely: you are absolutely right, for example, about his progress on the deficit

[ProudDad]

45. Thank you!

I was briefly relieved with the departure of ray-gun/bush I -- and then saw that we were going to get worse.

[Dawgs]

47. BILL IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!

I hate to yell, but it's not the nineties anymore, and Bill isn't running.

[ProudDad]

50. You're right

Slick Willie's not running...

His corporate lawyer wife, largest recipient of war money and health insurance mafia money, etc. etc. is running (and picked by the corporate capitalist masters to win this time.)

[LostinVA]

61. "Slick Willie" is a RW slur and has NO place on DU

[ProudDad]

65. BULLSHIT!

Those of us on the Left have been calling him that since he sold us down the river with NAFTA...

[LostinVA]

75. No, it's only BS on your part, because you know I'm right

*yawn*

[Forrest Greene]

72. Into Repression, Censorship & Bullying

...much?

[LostinVA]

76. No, I'm into following DU rules and not bashing Democrats miuch

Nice strawman.

:eyes:

Also, nice personal attack. Also against DU rules.

Run along and play now.

[killbotfactory]

49. The under-40 crowd voted overwhelmingly for Obama last night

That would be the people that grew up under Clinton, young adults and children.

That tells me something.

[Jai4WKC08]

77. It tells me they have no perspective on

What things were like under Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I.

It also tells me they think that because the GOP seems weak now, it means we don't have to worry about it coming back to power.

[HughBeaumont]

51. Most people on here didn't watch "The Big One", I see.

Life wasn't all wine and roses under Clinton, especially if you were a factory or warehouse worker. And during the early years, if you were a college graduate. High Tech job offshoring started picking up during the end of that administration and accelerated 200 fold under Bewsh.

And again . . . STILL no UHC.

[BootinUp]

52. Its such sad commentary on our party

when some members decide to pin the blame for the whole conservative movement on one man who wasn't even an adult when it started.

[Armstead]

58. No one is pinning the blame for conservative movement on Clinton

The blame is that he was instrumental as an architect and driver of the movement within the Democratic Party to stop fighting the Conservative Agenda, and to get in bed with the same forces.

[Skidmore]

59. Exactly, Armstead. And I also believe that we are not obliged to

be ever obligated to someone for the work they have done. We all need to share in the work of our society and new ideas should be given a chance.

[BootinUp]

63. He did what he was elected to do. eom

[DangerDave921]

53. 1994

Something had to be behind such a resurgence of the RW party. Books could be written on it, I'm sure. Clinton was polarizing to many on the right.

He also had the benefit of the dot.com boom surging through the 1990's. Always better to be president through good economic times than bad. I've never been able to figure out how much affect a president can make on the economy.

[Armstead]

57. Kick for the real issues

THIS IS WHAT MATTERS DAMMITALL

[ProudDad]

60. Gee, I wish to hell

ole ObamClintCaineOmnyUliani would actually mention some real solutions to the real issues...

All we hear is the same old tired bullshit capitalist bromides from them all..."let the market work!" "I feel your pain!" "I have the experience!" "I care." "I'm the one!"

[BootinUp]

64. I take it neither you nor the author of the OP

are supporting Obama who is sounding a lot like Bill C in '92.

If so than your gripe should be with the party that has pushed the two of them to the head, and not the candidates who are doing what they believe in.

[ProudDad]

66. The candidates, all of them...

in both right-wings of the Big Business Party are doing exactly what they believe in...

They believe in the divine right of their corporate capitalist masters to own the world and dispense with it how they please...

I will vote for Kucinich in the primary -- an exercise in personal catharsis with no real hope for any substantive change -- and I will continue to work locally to disengage from the corporate capitalist system that is killing us all!

[BootinUp]

67. They are doing what they can.

I appreciate Kucinich's positions in many ways. But making changes takes more than "spine" to borrow a meme popular in the blogosphere.

[Armstead]

69. But spine is a necessary first step

No time for a deep discussion. But the word "spine" comes to mind after seeing 35 years of corporate America and the GOP behaving in unconscionable ways that blatantly screwed the majority of consumers and workers and citizens, and seeing the Democratic Party refuse to stand up to this assault on common decency and common sense.

[BootinUp]

71. You and I have shared opinons

before on this, in short, there must be a political environment that accepts a candidates message and puts him in power.

[Armstead]

74. True but it's the job of a party to help create and lead that environment

I'm an issues junkie (like most on DU) so I realize that I pay more attention to this stuff than most people.

But I also know from people who are not, that they have long felt frustrated by the lack of concern about core issues by either political party. That's what has led to both to the "They're all the same" apathy of many swing voters. It is also what has driven many people who would have once been staunch Democratic liberals into the arms of the GOP CONservative fold, because the GOP has done a good sales job.

The only way there will ever be a political environment condusive to positive change is if the Democratic Party once again stands up for the principles of combined economic justice and self-interest that most people harbor instinctively in their gut.

[CyberPieHole]

68. Yeah...the Bush years have been so much better...

Democrats have been living in an Earthly~Paradise these past 7 years.:eyes:

[slipslidingaway]

73. Clinton Hails Senate's Passage of China Trade Bill

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200009/20/eng20000920_50928.html

"US President Bill Clinton on Tuesday hailed the Senate passage of a bill on permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, saying the "landmark" trade agreement will strengthen US prosperity and promote economic freedom.

The agreement will also increase "the prospects for openness in China and a more peaceful future for all of us," said Clinton in a statement.

The US Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill by a vote of 83-15 Tuesday afternoon..."


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/2000/000524-prc2.htm

"President Clinton - with considerable help
from the Republican majority in Congress - has secured
a major legislative victory with House approval of
permanent, normal, U-S trade status for China or P-N-
T-R. The debate over the trade bill, which will bring
China into the World Trade Organization, was bitter to
the end...

The bill - which is certain to get final approval in
the Senate in a few weeks - permanently puts China on
the same basis as other major U-S trade partners and
does away with what has been an annual debate in
Congress on China's trade status and human rights
record...

The Clinton administration and the Republican
leadership argued that the bill would help reverse the
huge imbalance in bilateral trade favoring China,
while opening Chinese society to the liberalizing
influences of freer trade and the Internet.
But opponents warned the measure would trigger an
exodus U-S manufacturing jobs to China, where wages
are low and environmental and labor protections weak.
They also said the United States would lose its
ability to influence China's human rights practices by
giving up the annual trade discussion.
In Wednesday's closing debate, New York Democrat Eliot
Engel said supporters of P-N-T-R were putting profits
above all other considerations:"

[murbley40]

78. I haven't.

Except for Bill's "indescretions", I was pretty damn good!!