The Clinton Legacy

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What is it? When some pro-Clinton folks in my office were discussing this recently they asked me what I thought his legacy would be - I tried to think of something positive to say to ameliorate them but I came up empty (I made a weak joke about internet boom instead). Policy-wise, I couldn't think of anything a liberal would be proud of him passing: NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, welfare "reform", the gays in the military thing, the failed healthcare initiative, etc.

Clinton defenders unite.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:50 (eighteen years ago)

So you're looking for a list of positive liberal (or even "progressive") achievements to rattle off or what?

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

Fiscal responsibility

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:01 (eighteen years ago)

August 20, 1996 - Minimum wage Increase Act

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

haha that is pretty weak tho

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

this thread is going to rule harder than jon's bbcode one when gabbneb and morbius show up

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:03 (eighteen years ago)

Family and Medical Leave Act

― Sara R-C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:05 (eighteen years ago)

So you're looking for a list of positive liberal (or even "progressive") achievements to rattle off or what?

well, kinda- although a simple list of legislative achievements is what I'm really after, particularly legislation that has far-reaching or lasting implications. Whether or not liberals or progressives or whatever approve of them is a separate matter.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:12 (eighteen years ago)

For a second I thought the thread was titled "The Reagan Legacy."

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:14 (eighteen years ago)

Well for the mainstream of the country I don't think Clinton's remembered legacy will be about legislation and policy any more than, say, Reagan's is. For people without strong political dogmatism in either direction, it'll be a matter of how they felt during those years, and how they felt the country was doing, and so yeah: very strong economy leading to practically miraculous budget surplus. Which is appropriate, I think, because Clinton's triangulations turned him into a fairly ideal mainstream president -- we're not going to be able to dig up that much of a legacy for progressives to get excited over, but during a decade where Americans were safe and wealthy enough to get really heated up over domestic issues, he steered a course that your average middle-of-the-road suburban family could probably approve of as generally sensible and well-intentioned.

I think as time goes on people will also develop some vague respect for the Clinton attempt to do something about the health care system, years before it began to weigh on the public as a massive priority -- even people who didn't agree with or don't even remember the details may grudgingly appreciate the effort.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:16 (eighteen years ago)

These are the Clinton Legacy buzzwords that come to my mind:

peace
prosperity
budget surplus
diplomacy
blowjob
persecution

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

welfare reform

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

woolite

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:21 (eighteen years ago)

Except for a few die-hards on the left, welfare reform is pretty widely regarded as a success, isn't it?

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)

during a decade where Americans were safe and wealthy enough to get really heated up over domestic issues, he steered a course that your average middle-of-the-road suburban family could probably approve of as generally sensible and well-intentioned.

So will he be remembered as a Benjamin Harrison or Coolidge?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:24 (eighteen years ago)

saxophone

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

[Removed Illegal Link]

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

Hmm, not sure why that didn't work.

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

V Chip! blue dress! "The era of big government is over"! That hand gesture with his thumb! Dee Dee Myers! Socks the cat!

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:37 (eighteen years ago)

al gore's need (?) to distance himself from clinton conceivably cost him 26,000 votes in AR or 41,000 votes in TN, either of which would have given him the election. you can't talk about clinton's legacy without talking about bush.

― dan, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

That hand gesture with his thumb!

ah yes, the Clinton point. I spent a little too much time deconstructing the psych/body language behind that one.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

Well actually pointing is rude. The Clinton "pushing the elevator call button" gesture had the force of a point but the feel of a friendly, non-aggressive thumbs-up.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

oh yeah, let's not forget the centrist-pandering SISTA SOULJA SMACKDOWN

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

you can't talk about clinton's legacy without talking about bush.

Yep: like you can't talk about Reagan's legacy without mentioning Clinton. Just as Reagan's anti-pinko cred protected him against accusations of softness when negotiating with the Soviets, Bill could cheerfully sign NAFTA, "end welfare we know it" and sign anti-terror legislation.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:43 (eighteen years ago)

answer

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:44 (eighteen years ago)

assault weapons ban

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

See, starts high with "remember how we made so much money that the government actually SAVED some? Right? Guys? We offered you a LOCKBOX? Remember you made fun of the LOCKBOX? Where's your LOCKBOX now, bitches???"

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

haha

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

The source is a wonder of objectivity, gabbs.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

Except for a few die-hards on the left, welfare reform is pretty widely regarded as a success, isn't it?

Insofar as most people get off on the idea of punishing the poor, yes.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:48 (eighteen years ago)

you got another one?

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:48 (eighteen years ago)

brady bill

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

Punishing the poor by trapping them in a cycle of dependence and distorted incentives?

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

TRY-ANGER-LATION

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

vetoed partial birth abortion ban

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

Dude, I'm guessing Gab's offering that up less as an objective summary and more as, I dunno, the case Clinton might make for what he accomplished, something that's a pretty relevant starting point for a thread line this.

Seriously, though, I'd pay money to see Gore JUST ONCE get all "told you so" about the lockbox. Everyone made fun of the dork who wanted to save the money.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

he said i told you so in the snl skit

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

Is there even anything good to say about his foreign policy?

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

i think clinton was a pretty shitty president btw - the 3 things i named are the best i got

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

Punishing the poor by ~~trapping them in a cycle of dependence and distorted incentives~~depriving them of a basic social safety net without offering a legitimate chance at a living wage through job training or public works or civil service or...?

(There's a NAFTA joke that could be made there as well.)

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:52 (eighteen years ago)

I don't read the Atlantic and don't know who Jack Beatty is: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411u/pp2004-11-23

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:53 (eighteen years ago)

The Clinton "pushing the elevator call button" gesture had the force of a point but the feel of a friendly, non-aggressive thumbs-up

why are you always so OTM

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:53 (eighteen years ago)

Is there even anything good to say about his foreign policy?

He didn't seek U.N. approval to bomb Kosovo? As Nixon would say, "Whammo!"

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

Is there even anything good to say about his foreign policy?

Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪ on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:51 PM (1 minute ago)

good friday agreement??

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

Is there even anything good to say about his foreign policy?

Intervention in the Balkans was basically just, even if it didn't exactly work as well as hoped and we should all have some moral qualms with the 'shock and awe' approach to military intervention.

Not much good you can say elsewhere.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

lifted trade embargo on vietnam

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

found new uses for a good Cuban

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

nuclear weapons testing ban

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

never sold weapons to Saddam Hussein

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:57 (eighteen years ago)

bombed that aspirin factory

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

Skipping 102 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

xpost

that's The Nation

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:00 (eighteen years ago)

The protest voters I know personally (IRL) seem to have an inflated sense of civic duty, as if those of us who voted for one of the two major parties somehow don't take our electoral participation seriously enough. Is a strategic vote less legitimate than a 'sincere' one? I don't think so.

― elmo argonaut, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

Well, for starters, if enough people didn't vote for the two parties we might have a real revolution in politics. This might, of course, disappoint gabbneb.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:07 (eighteen years ago)

elmo, it depends what a lifetime of 'strategic' votes gets you. I think it gets you one party with two right wings.

how many of those Paul quotes are from 1988 or earlier? cuz I certainly hadn't seen em then, and obv wdn't vote for somebody I knew made them.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:07 (eighteen years ago)

On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction.

― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:11 (eighteen years ago)

elmo, it depends what a lifetime of 'strategic' votes gets you. I think it gets you one party with two right wings.

sorry morbz anything you say now is filtered thru being said by a guy who VOTED FOR RON PAUL

― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:11 (eighteen years ago)

what sort of 'revolution' do you imagine that would be alfred?

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:13 (eighteen years ago)

Taking the piss out of Ron Paul seems pretty boring. Get a room.

― Aimless, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:15 (eighteen years ago)

our political parties have cracked up and reconfigured themselves before, nothing is set in stone (any whigs in the house?) if a certain set of national issues come up that reconfigure the right/left landscape beyond what the dem/gop setup can handle, something else will happen.

― gff, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:16 (eighteen years ago)

so andtwat, Paul's explanation is some pimply-faced aide wrote the shit you posted. Whatever.

Maybe a 'revolution' with actual progressive policies? As opposed to biting yr lower lip and just saying stuff about Hope.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:17 (eighteen years ago)

what sort of 'revolution' do you imagine that would be alfred?

A realization by current party heads that (a) their constituents are fucking upset and aware of the lack of real difference between GOP and Dems; (b) the party system isn't truly representative.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:18 (eighteen years ago)

my point earlier was: protest votes either do two things: a) nothing, or b) harm the chances of a candidate that is closer (but not close enough, apparently) to your position, bringing about a worse outcome than the one you were protesting. neither one seems like a really laudable end effect to be shooting for, "conscience" or not.

unless we see a complete reconstruction of our system along parliamentary lines with coalition governments, things will fall into binaries.

― gff, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe a 'revolution' with actual progressive policies? As opposed to biting yr lower lip and just saying stuff about Hope.

i thought maybe we'd want to get shit done instead of being right and losing all the time

― deej, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:26 (eighteen years ago)

'getting shit done' : NAFTA, DOMA, abolishing AFDC, providing a political model for Dubya

The political timidity of good smart people in the post-Reagan generation = suckage

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

A realization by current party heads that (a) their constituents are fucking upset and aware of the lack of real difference between GOP and Dems

Thing is, this is patently untrue, and the fact that you feel that way does not actually make it a universal opinion.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

What did relativism ever do for me?

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

Which part is untrue, nabisco? If you disagree, the answers upthread regarding Bill's "legacy" should help.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

But let's return to this thread's subject, shall we?

2007-03-14) — Former President Bill Clinton today added his voice to the chorus calling for Gen. Peter Pace to apologize for remarks in a recent interview in which he branded some kinds of behavior as “immoral“, and said the military should not condone immorality of any kind.

In a newspaper interview, Gen. Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mentioned adultery and homosexual behavior as examples of immorality.

President Clinton, who served as Commander in Chief for two tours of duty, instituted the military policy called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ which officially allows homosexuals to serve in the armed forces as long as they lie about their behavior and don’t get caught in the act.

“Gen. Pace’s antiquated ideas could have a chilling effect on military recruiting,” said Mr. Clinton. “In addition, there’s a real risk that the general has hurt the feelings of many who love this country and are willing to fight for our freedom to have intimate relations without so-called moral boundaries.”

Mr. Clinton noted that if the nation had Gen. Pace’s attitude toward adultery just a few years ago, “we would have lost the valiant service of one of history’s greatest commanders in chief.”

“The military desperately needs brave men and women with the character, integrity and dignity that their colleagues can count on in times of war,” said Mr. Clinton, “But Gen. Pace essentially hung out a sign that says, ‘adulterers, homosexuals and liars need not apply.’”

He urged the general to “count the cost of his narrow views."

Pots, kettles, etc.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

I'd also note that most of the things people say they're looking to accomplish by opting for candidates who get less than 1% of the vote -- "revolution," "sending a message," "reshaping the party," etc. -- are things that are traditionally accomplished by activism, agitation, outreach, or party involvement, and traditionally not accomplished at all -- usually even self-defeated! -- via 1% electoral politics.

And yet the rhetoric and personality types that seem to go with 1% electoral politics actually seem like the last ones that would bother with things like activism, agitation, outreach, or party involvement, because all of those things would call for some level of making common cause with significant groups of other people -- i.e., the definition of political action and the very thing they seem largely resistant to.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe a 'revolution' with actual progressive policies?

given that about half the voting public votes against progressive policies, i see no basis for this fantasy.

A realization by current party heads that (a) their constituents are fucking upset and aware of the lack of real difference between GOP and Dems; (b) the party system isn't truly representative

if enough people thought there wasn't any real difference between the parties (given that 2/3 of the voting public identifies with one, i don't think this is close to true) or that they would have more power banding together with smaller, more like-minded groups (possibly an endless cycle in such a large and various society), the parties would already be gone.

if a third party develops in this country, i think it will make our politics more consensus-oriented rather than more diverse, but that this is unlikely to last long. if things really broke up parliamentary-style, i think that would have to happen with some sort of formal defederalization. you really think that's going to happen?

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

Alfred that Clinton-Pace thing is a fake, right...?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:44 (eighteen years ago)

The voting public votes against progressive policies because one side says progressivism = socialism while the other is so inarticulate it can't dispel the myths.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/condi_wants_clinton_to_save_her_big.jpg

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

cf. "socialized medicine"

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

Alfred that Clinton story is a joke, you dickbag.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:48 (eighteen years ago)

I know it is!

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

given that about half the voting public votes against progressive policies

I know that's your mantra, but the key is to get the nonvoting 'pro-progressives' voting.

Actually nabisco's point about "1% electoral personalities" (which I don't entirely agree with -- there were a lot of activist types in Nader's 2000 camp) is part of why I was disappointed (like Camille Paglia) by the '00 Green campaign -- didn't do enough to reach out beyond the choir.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

The voting public votes against progressive policies because one side says progressivism = socialism while the other is so inarticulate it can't dispel the myths.

So we should vote for articulate people-connectors like Nader, who's done so much to reassure the American mainstream that progressive politics are non-socialistic and inspiring.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:52 (eighteen years ago)

the key is to get the nonvoting 'pro-progressives' voting

1. Bigfoot
2. Loch Ness Monster
3. Ghosts
4. Giant revolutionary American electoral bloc of non-voting progressives who are upset by lack of differentiation between major parties

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

I haven't mentioned Nader once.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:57 (eighteen years ago)

man, so not OTM.

Man or Woman on the Street: "Politicians? Fuck em all." A myth?

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

also, I saw Bigfoot at Nader's Madison Square Garden rally in 2000.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

Man or Woman on the Street: "Politicians? Fuck em all." A myth?

Very real.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:07 (eighteen years ago)

Man or Woman on the Street: "Politicians? Fuck em all." A myth?

THIS IS NEVER GOING TO CHANGE

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:07 (eighteen years ago)

Men and women on the street say the same thing about journalists and lawyers. Meanwhile, many of them find Fox News refreshing, enjoy filing frivolous lawsuits, and don't exactly advocate a specific vision of ABA code reform that just happens to match up with my personal one. "Fuck politicians" is not the same thing as a progressive electorate, for god's sake.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

who enjoys filing a frivolous lawsuit? or maybe you're kidding.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:11 (eighteen years ago)

Note also that the person currently most successful at circumventing "fuck politicians" cynicism = not a progressive third-party canditate but a major-party right-winger by the name of McCain.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:13 (eighteen years ago)

you seriously think McCain's pulling in a lot of traditional non-voting "fuck em all" types?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:15 (eighteen years ago)

You mean Giulani.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:15 (eighteen years ago)

no, he means mccain

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:17 (eighteen years ago)

you seriously think McCain's pulling in a lot of traditional non-voting "fuck em all" types?

Personal experience says yes.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:17 (eighteen years ago)

McCain's pulling in a lot of traditional ~~non~~-voting "fuck em all" types

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:19 (eighteen years ago)

I think Giuliani's too soon to call, really -- the rest of America doesn't know much about him yet beyond "dude was totally reassuring after 9/11."

Shakey, I didn't say anything about non-voters, though if you counted young people in 2000 then they might come into the picture -- my point is that over the last decade McCain seems to have been more successful than anyone at convincing Americans that he's somehow above the things people are politician-cynical about, to the extent that even liberals have had high opinions of him up until they catch a closer look at his actual positions. And yeah, that's immensely electorally valuable for him, and it seems like the main thing that's kept him from making much headway with it in 2000 was winding up as the party's misfit stepchild in terms of support, funding, etc.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:21 (eighteen years ago)

Aren't McCain's polling numbers in the toilet though?

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:23 (eighteen years ago)

Do you think Giuliani's family values problems will be notable or has the populace stopped caring in the post-Clinton era.

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:23 (eighteen years ago)

Anyway point being why in the world, in America, would anyone assume people's cynicism about politics somehow translates to progressive inclinations????? It's such a bizarre wishful-thinking assumption: people's cynicism tends to translate to the exact same choices as people's optimism.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

sure nabisco, I wasn't *equating* the two. "fuck politicians" isn't entirely cynicism, it's a reaction to the all-time high of professional cynicism in pols.

Post-Watergate I can't think of a single national pol who hasn't proved to be the end-product of focus groups; Clinton and his V-Chip/Dick Morris reelection campaign was the most obvious example that cynicism was more bipartisan than ever.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:28 (eighteen years ago)

(btw, some of these points are dealt with pointedly -- on both sides -- in that new Nader documentary)

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:30 (eighteen years ago)

Aren't McCain's polling numbers in the toilet though?

he is being polled among republicans, and he's usually/often second, which is partly explainable by having a slightly lower name id than giuliani. his real support is among independents.

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:30 (eighteen years ago)

two years pass...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cb_haiti_bill_clinton

― "the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 03:22 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.