Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bill Clinton's Reagan Legacy - The Nation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:28 PM
Original message
Bill Clinton's Reagan Legacy - The Nation
<snip>

As part of an extended attempt to disingenuously link Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement, veterans of the Clinton Administration held a conference call to proclaim the 1990s the era of bold new ideas.

"One would think we would all agree that it's the Democrats and not the Republicans who are the party of ideas in the last 10 or 15 years," Clinton strategist Mark Penn said. The only problem with this claim is that many of Clinton's most trumpeted "ideas" were actually Republican ones. His strategy of triangulation, coined by Penn and Dick Morris, at its core adopted ideas from the other side of the aisle, putting a soft Democratic face on harsh Republican policies. These supposedly big ideas, like NAFTA, welfare reform and a balanced budget, would've fit in just fine in a Reagan Administration. When Clinton declared in 1996 that "the era of big government is over," one could imagine the words coming out of Reagan's mouth.

My colleague William Greider captured Clinton's legacy in an indispensable Nation magazine article from 2000, "Unfinished Business: Clinton's Lost Presidency."

Clinton, as President, consigned the malfunctioning global economy to the reform energies of the Business Roundtable and Wall Street. His Administration led cheers for multinational commerce, opened fragile economies to the manic surges of global capital and created the World Trade Organization to judge whether new social standards are, in fact, barriers to trade and therefore forbidden.


When Bill Clinton recites the big challenges, he reminds us of all he danced away from as President. The spirited reformer is the young man we met back in 1992, brimming with big ideas, but he is utterly unconvincing now. One feels sadness for the lost promise of this extraordinarily skillful politician. One also suspects that Clinton is trying to revise the public memory of his presidency, polishing his reformer image so that when future Presidents actually do take up these big ideas and confront the challenges, he will be able to claim parentage.


That's exactly what's happening now. The Clintons are slamming Obama for admiring Reagan's political skills when it was Clinton who distanced himself from the progressive traditions of the Democratic Party and built a bridge to Reagan's legacy.

Helpfully EJ Dionne reminds us that back in 1991, Clinton praised Reagan. More recently, Hillary Clinton told Tom Brokaw that Reagan "played the balance and the music beautifully." As Dionne writes, "with both Clintons on record saying nice things about Reagan, why go after Obama on this point?"

The Clintons will certainly take umbrage at the Reagan comparison on matters of economic policy, pointing to his long-standing battles with the GOP. Greider suggest George Herbert Walker Bush may be a better fit.

Clinton did essentially govern like a moderate Republican. His accomplishments, when the sentimental gestures are set aside, are indistinguishable from George Bush's. Like Bush, Clinton increased the top income tax rate a bit, raised the minimum wage modestly and expanded tax credits for the working poor. He reduced military spending somewhat but, like Bush, failed to restructure the military for post-cold war realities. He got tough on crime, especially drug offenders, and built many more prisons. He championed educational reform. He completed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was mainly negotiated by the Bush Administration. On these and other matters, one can fairly say that Clinton completed Bush's agenda.


In her bid for the White House, Hillary Clinton is singing a different tune, railing against corporate America and allying with the downtrodden, promising to fight for working people and the middle-class. But remember, Bill Clinton did the same thing in 1992. It's reasonable to ask which Hillary will be in the White House, when Bill is in the East Wing and the Clintonites of old come back.

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-berman/bill-clintons-reagan-leg_b_83305.html

Which Clinton indeed...

:shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. They will say (lie) anything to get elected. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. And change nothing. K&R! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. Kick. To reveal *the truth* about The Right Leaning, DLC Staffed, Clintonian Executive Branch
:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZinZen Donating Member (599 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. kick to your kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. bil and hil are vying for the biggest fattest hypocrites
which ties in succinctly with their burgeoning Liars' status. Or is it just "abusing the truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. LOL !!!
That's perfect!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. hilary's new guru..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. The Nation is authored by trust fund Trotskyites
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 11:44 PM by The_Casual_Observer
and a few anarchists. They'll hate whoever gets elected no matter what party. Fuck them, nobody pays any attention to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. LOL !!! - "Trotskyites" ???
Man... when did DU have the Open House for Moderates?

And WHY???

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. You fancy yourself the leader of some kind of half-ass nitwit peoples
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 12:03 AM by The_Casual_Observer
revolt or something? Own the franchise for progressive movement?

I've endured all the bullshit from corn and the rest of that nowhere bunch for probably 20 years. I can't remember a time that they ever agreed with anybody or anything. The Nation is purely for the like-minded. THey've always hated Clinton , but they hate everybody else too. The nation accomplishes nothing, it's utterly worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Yes, IF the Clintonian DLC wins the Executive Branch we're all ONE cozy right wing duopoly ...
Party affiliation really won't matter save for pause for "increased SMEAR fodder" to one's opponent's campaign. :thumbsdown:

Since the RNC and DLC employ the same Atwater "divide and conquer" tactics, only THE PEOPLE who are within the "investor class" WIN when we are under the stranglehold of either neo-liberalism or ultra-conservatism.

Welcome to The Machine. :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Just wait until they start investing social security funds into multi-national stocks...

then the corporatocracy will be complete. You can kiss government 'for the people' goodbye. The Company or The Machine, whatever you choose to call it, will take total control...and if you think this is all about capitalism, think again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. Pretty much the way it was right down the line.

When I first heard about Clinton ragging on Obama over the Reagan comment the first two things that went thru my mind were "A Different Kind of Democrat" (which I took at the time to mean more like a Republican) and "The Era of Big Government is over."

Always blew my mind how far the GOP went to ruin Clinton considering how much helped them deliver on their promises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
13. No matter who wins (Democrat) the DLC ideology --Republican
Lite will be the rule.

Which one has the experienc to work the DLC to get things we would
like???

People are going to be very disappointed if they think otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DiamondJay Donating Member (484 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
14. clinton's ideas were just good ideas, not republican ideas
sure republicans talked about balanced budgets, but i don't think peope of either side think they are bad, not to mention that Reagan and Republicans didn't believe in them, look at the deficit they rang up. Just cuz republicans talk about liking "big government" doesn't mean that liberals love big government, or else why would we complain about the patriot act? isn't that big brother government? Lets not forget Bill Clinton expanding student loans, giving the earned income tax credit to poor people and helping the poor is a liberal not reagan idea. To be liberal ideas doesn't mean be socialist like Kucinich
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 27th 2024, 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC