by threadbear » Tue 07 Jun 2005, 11:27:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zentric', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'C')linton was classic neo-liberal, clenched fist in a velvet glove, foreign policy wise. Wasn't it Clinton who signed onto the "war on drugs" that kicked off the dismantling of human rights in the US. Everyone thinks the neocons are entirely responsible for what is transpiring right now, but in several key areas they are simply building on a base that was already there.
Clinton's whole hearted support of the IMF imposed austerity programs in third world countries wasn't too cool and he let financiers dominate in domestic and foreign policy.
Yeah, Clinton beats Bush by a country mile in many respects, but great leader? Hmmm.
If for nothing else, Clinton was great because he kept the country "legit" in the midst of a relentless, withering Republican-inspired shit storm of which, in the last five years, we know the effects of all too well. Today, this country is on the verge of turning into a fascist, indentured, third-world, isolationist theocracy. But what made Clinton a great president was that he could withstand these dark forces, all alone at times, for two full terms. He also was and remains a profoundly intelligent, knowledgable, empathetic and articulate guy.
Regarding Clinton's past support of rigorous drug enforcement, the IMF's austerity measures, and his allowance of financiers to dominate domestic and foreign policy, what have you just said that would stop me from continuing to believe that Clinton routinely did the best he could with the time, energy and resources he had?
As an example, in the first year, Hillary proposed a national health care system and was roundly ridiculed for it. She then withdrew her proposal and then talked little of it for the next seven years. Does that mean she and her husband no longer believed in the idea of national health care? No, it just meant that we'd instead have to continue to "rely" on a system that would only continue to fall further apart, which, by the way, it has.
Similarly, can one conclude from what you said that Clinton fully
approved of how the financiers dominated policy? As I've already stated, he was under relentless attack, and we both already know how the American people have this knack of being ignorant of nearly all things foreign and domestic. What's the poor man to do to remain effective, facing the full brunt of peoples' prejudice, or, otherwise, their simple malicious intent?
Okay Smartie Pants. These are all very good points. Clinton didn't have the same dictatorial powers that the executive is trying to grab right now, under Bush (or Cheney, I mean) So I suppose that we should view him through this filter, as a man who may have tried to do the best he could. Personally, I think Clinton DID buy into the free market ideology a little too whole heartedly. This was a basic component of the neo-liberal philosophy--a rising tide raises all boats. And I absolutely fault him for that. As far as the drug search and seizure laws--you'd really have to familiarlize yourself with the topic to understand how undermining it is of basic human rights, and how Clinton really dropped the ball on that one. He could have banned or overturned it, by executive order, as unconstitutional. Had he done that, there would have been more in the way of constitutional legal impediments through precedence, to stop Bushco, than exist today.
My brother made the comment about Clinton and other presidents (prior to Bushco) that they are more figure heads than actual leaders and the breadth of options available to them, range all the way from A to B. Very very narrow scope.
Your basic assertion that Clinton was operating within very confined restraints and doing the best he could, (very broadly speaking) is a good point, though. James Carville, who now hosts Crossfire confirms that big Tobacco, through Kenneth Starr, basically did Clinton in. Clinton landed a one two punch on one of the largest oligarchies out there, which may have red flagged him as a "dangerous subversive".
The Dems behind the scenes, who really need a good swift kick for being a bunch of pushover sissies and corrupt ass kissers, are Terry Macauliff and the Democratic National Committee. Maybe we should be looking at the entire system, rather than judging the politicians (with the exception of Bushco) who were trying to operate within it. The system IS corrupting and it has to change, beginning with campaign finance reform.
So, in summary, Smallpoxgirl and Zentric--It's a draw.
![[smilie=XXpuke.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/XXpuke.gif "XXpuke")
