The sense that economic populism is becoming a bigger issue in the Democratic party base is making some centrist Democrats nervous. And one in particular, former President Bill Clinton, is apparently doing a lot to try and spin his legacy.
The New York Times covered his efforts with a big May 1 piece headlined “Bill Clinton Defends His Economic Legacy.” But while Clinton seems to be arguing with someone about his policy record, the paper doesn’t give readers any sense of who these critics might be.
Readers get plenty of quotes from Clinton himself, and Times reporter Amy Chozick tries to characterize his policies, writing that he “forged a new model of a pro-business, pragmatic Democrat who championed public-private partnerships and open markets.”
In addition to quotes from a recent Clinton speech and some off-the-cuff complaints he’s made, readers hear from Burns Strider, who runs a group dedicated to promoting Hillary Clinton; former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta; and former Clinton adviser Al From.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is the only person quoted who might have some critical appraisal of Clinton’s record to share, but he’s in the mix only to discuss a letter to Hillary Clinton about Walmart.
The Times is obviously aware of the existence of critics to Clinton’s left. Chozick mentions that some argue that Clinton’s policies “might have exacerbated the current inequality,” and writes that “some policy experts argue that the era of centrist Clinton economics may have expired.” But instead of quoting them, the Times goes back to Bill Clinton, one more time, for a challenge to that argument.
Hi. Critic of Clinton here. I’m old enough to know that politics involves more than checking my own bankbook, but looking at overall economic conditions, now and over time. (In short, it’s not all about me.) What I see: The US reached its height of wealth and productivity from FDR to Reagan as a result of the social and economic policies and programs that were in place. With Reagan, we began reversing course, picking the opposite of those things that were successful. Clinton brought the “Reagan Revolution” to fruition, ended the Great Society agenda, still had enough time to begin targeting the New Deal (disability – policies that President Obama reversed), and put NAFTA into action. Fewer jobs, no safety net, what could go wrong? Clinton’s agenda actually ensured that if the economy fell (which it did, after 9/11), we would not have the tools necessary to rebuild. But at the time, it was an adequate distraction from Monica Lewinsky. In the end, I have remained dismayed by the stunning immaturity of the Clinton administration, and the man’s relentless self-centered approach to politics and policies.
Clinton is a guy high on the list of people who need to disappear or at least shut up. sure he ended welfare as we knew it. thanks a ton for that, he maintained sanctions on Iraq as long as he was pres,. that was when a half million Iraqi children died as a direct result. and continued bombing. a compliant media never really bothered him about these things.so the public continues to think he is ok. and democrats still invite him to speak. he is still the smiling assassin.
Just Bill? The guy who shoved Lani Guinier under a bus? Isn’t Hillary part of this? As Secretary of State, she was the promoter-in-chief of US fracking technology & leases. Was filling the Obama White House to the brim with Clinton acolytes the quid pro quo for her withdrawal in ’08. Hope & Hope, again. Is that Hype? It does seem that the 1st President from the 50th state is in sync the Ivy League circle. Otherwise, why the breathless push for TPP & TTIP, coming on the heels of the post-Plan Colombia FTA? The difference seems to be the so-called “1st Black President” was never subjected to the rug pulling, non-stop racism that the actual Black President has to endure. The Cowboy Indian Alliance morally occupied the National Mall this past week. Here’s hoping for the true international with the action described here: http://www.southernstudies.org/2014/05/uaw-takes-its-case-against-nissan-in-mississippi-t.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fs%2005-02-2014
Clinton’s economic policies starting with Nafta, Cafta, deregulation, elimination of Glass Steigal, served to devastate the middle class.
Then his welfare reform and three strikes put a permanent knife in the back of the poor.
For all this Wall street rewarded him with a $100 million parachute. Obama pointed this out when Bill and Hillary got racial in the 2008 pres. race.
Though has did little for the middle class and poor, at least he hasn’t hurt the poor like “Bubba” Clinton did and Hillary will. Just show her some Wall street money.
While I am an enormous Clinton fan, especially the Brady bill, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and the budget surpluses, he was not perfect. He would have done well to exclude Mexico, a country with poor worker safety, environmental standards, and wages that can be taken advantage of by companies, from NAFTA. I would have liked to see a more powerful reform in healthcare than his plan, which was very similar to Obamacare, and a movement towards universal coverage. I loved welfare reform; everyone should work, though I am not the type to say that there are a lot of “welfare queens.” Most people do work. His “one strike” reform does do a great harm to people leaving prison, especially nonviolent drug criminals, who will desperately need the aid upon their reentry into society and will likely return to prison for a lack of realistic options. Welfare reform ended up hurting a lot of people. Deregulating the banks was a horrible idea, though I can’t necessarily blame him for it since it was being called for by a lot of people at the time. No president can be perfect. As an overall assessment, I’d like to see us move away from the “centrist democrat” model that we have come to accept and towards candidates that will protect consumers such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Jerry Brown.
The corpress’ favorite sell out
(Or considering his contributions to the cause of privatization, that should be “sell off”).
Bill was very instrumental in being thee person behind FANNY and FREDDY- who were the linchpins of the economic collapse.And Im sorry but to me he will always be the guy who lied under oath three times before he lied bold faced to all of us.Moving on……
CAPS = BAD EYES. ONE THING THAT SPRINGS TO MIND RE BILL CLINTON IS THE REPEAL OF GLASS STEAGALL, ELIMINATING THE LINE BETWEEN REGULAR AND INVESTMENT BANKS. ADD MATH WHIZ KIDS WHO DECIDED TO MAKE $ AND A FEW YEARS LATER: KABOOM. PLUS CUTTING WELFARE TO AN EXTENT MANY STILL FEEL IT. ESPECIALLY, OF COURSE, AFRICAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS. BEGINNING THE SLIDE TO RECESSION THOUGH HE DID BALANCE THE BUDGET. ON THE BACKS OF THE POOR? DURING OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN, WHICH I FOLLOWED FANATICALLY, HAVING BEEN A WHITE SOUTHERNER IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS, I WEPT AS HE WAS INAUGURATED. THOUGH I’D THOUGHT UH OH AS HIS ECONOMIC TEAM MARCHED ONTO A STAGE: BOB RUBIN, TIM GEITHNER. REMEMBER MICHAEL MOORE SAYING IT TAKES ONE TO REFORM ONE. AND WE CAN’T SAY OBAMA ISN”T BETTER THAN MCCAIN PALIN WOULDA BEEN.
The Clintons are war criminals, to put it succinctly. Whatever they have done to Americans, what they have done to people in Iraq and Yugoslavia was far worse. I would like nothing better than to see both of them disappear, and I’m guessing so would all the African men Bill has convinced to chop off their foreskins. I shudder just thinking of these two miserable excuses for human beings.
The biggest issue I had with Clinton was that he was better a Republican than many of the those Republicans that we had in; If the Republicans came in, and tried to steal the bank from the poor, to hand to the rich, Clinton would find a way to sell as it ‘His idea’ making it palatable to those who going to take the Knife in the Back, even if they did realize it (NAFTA, Glass-Steagel, Tyson Chicken, and on down the line).
They would rationalize in their minds that “Oh, this is part of the give and take, and we’ll get some back later”. Only later, when they finally realized that it was it was always “take from the people, and give to the Corporate Lords and Masters” and nothing was ever coming back, did they then feel the remorse. By then it was too late and they still didn’t realize that he had opened the doors to the vault, so the next President coming in would be able to just hand out every dollar in it, to his Uber-riche buddies. Can we say 200 million surplus turned in 4 Billion deficit.
The Republicans should hail him as hero… Oh wait, looks like the Times did that. Maybe they are hoping Hillary will be as good a Republican.
Point very well taken by FAIR here. The Times’s basic approach in this article was to work PR for the Clintons: allowing Bill and his allies to “prebut” criticisms that they are worried about, without the Times actually listening to, or fairly reporting the views of, the critics.
Billy Bob Bubba was and remains a huge disappointment. He dismantled Glass-Steagal and the is unforgivable. He started the ruin of the working class and really screwed the poor people. Again, unforgivable. He bombed and killed innocent people in other countries. Unforgivable and a war crime and a crime against humanity. He needs to be facing charges at the international court AND the US courts as such. War criminals should not be making huge speaking fees and roaming the globe free. Just my opinion, others may vary.