Bill Clinton's Reagan Legacy

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.

Cross-posted at The Nation

Comments

[Rescisco]

This country ran out of good ideas long ago. The Reagan's and the Clinton's are but a symptom of electoral brain death. George W is the culmination of an era, not an aberation. All of these "fairy tales" are the product of our collective (not very creative) imagination and our incredible lack of informed judgement. From the "shining city on the hill" to a "place called hope," we've purchased every cheap frill and fallen for every sleazy trick in the book. "Compassionate Conservativism" was the ultimate in brain farting, and we were primed and ready to elect and re-elect perfect bullshit. Now, a new election is upon us and new "fairy tales" combat each other in a contest for the "future." I am just afraid that the future will be the past that we have not seen. "The fault is not in our stars dear Brutus, but in ourselves."

[drblack]

The Clintons would have been considered moderate republicans before Reagan..If you vote for a Clinton you are voting for Republican ideas.
Clinton's 1996 communications act, giving China most favored nation status so big business could transfer business from the US to China and NAFTA are just a few of Clinton's Republican ideas.
Edwards is the most progressive candidate now that Kucinich has dropped out.

[leftbehind2000]

Obama needs to realize that being defensive on these issues only tends to legitimize them in the minds of some people.

For every attack, Obama should hit back with Clinton issues.

- When the Clinton's bring up Iraq, remind everyone that HRC supported the war measure and add that when everyone else had finally learned their lesson, she was one of the few Dems to vote for the onerous Kyl-Lieberman bill, authorizing more power for GWB against Iran.

- When the Clinton's bring up "GOP party of good ideas" comment from Obaman, he should counter with the measures Clinton put into place that HURT regular people.

- HRC wants to play the "BILL" card every time it helps her, and distance herself whenever it's convenient. I'd make a permanent link between her so-called "experience" and the policies of the Clinton administration that failed the American people. I'd start with NAFTA and go from there.

There are definitely vulnerable areas in HRC's armor. I'd bring up NAFTA at every single whistlestop until she has to respond to it. I'd bring up the vote in Iraq and Iran, reminding everyone that HRC is a warmonger. I would hammer and hammer on the corporate lobbyist issue until HRC is forced to address the issue forthrightly.

One of the early attacks on Obama is that he was too nice of a guy to win in November. Despite American's self-proclaimed loathing of mudslinging, it obviously works for the Clintons. Obama needs to be willing to go all in and fight for this nomination. Otherwise, he'll be a footnote as the first person of color to win a primary and that will be it.

[EugeneWright]

In the words of Ronnie, "There you go again". Another Clinton-hating blogger basing an attack on a false presumption. Where is the quotation of Clinton (either Hillary or Bill) criticizing Obama's Reagan worship? All I see is their reaction to the 'republican party of ideas' statement. Since Obama fired this salvo directly at the Clintons by placing the 15 year time stamp on it, their response to it perfectly understandable, in fact almost obligatory. However, certain Clinton-hating members of the press (as always) find it necessary to lend their own interpretation to the statement to tell the rest of us dummies just how deviously calculating these Clintons are. I am beginning to truly understand why Bill said, "It depends on what the meaning of is is".

[Arg]

Well said. In his book "The Agenda," Bob Woodward quotes Bill Clinton berating his aides in April 1993: "I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans," he bellowed to his team. "We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we're fighting with Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great? ... We must have something for the common man. It wouldn't hurt me in 1994, and I can put enough into '95 and '96 to crawl through to reelection. At least we'll have health care to give them, if we can't give them anything else." Well, he didn't even manage that for the common man (woman, or child). In fact, as a Democrat who's been reviewing his (and Hillary's) record as much as possible in the past month (from the penal system, drugs, women's rights, through to welfare, health, education, foreign policy, AIDS, and Third World aid), I struggle to find a progressive achievement of note. We can blame the Republicans' power in Congress for some of Bill's long record of failure, but we Democrats need to accept that an awful lot of it was due to his policy of triangulation and personality flaws that went far beyond his libido and 'economy with the truth.'

[Terror Cheese]

Obamatons across the web should just give it a rest. The man kissed St. Ronnie's ass in order to curry favor with conservatives and got the blowback he deserved from his blow job. The more he and his supporters try to explain away his devotion to the cult of Ray-Gun, the longer it remains an issue. The longer this stays in Democrats' minds, the more they are going to question Obama's judgement and devotion to progressive principles.

On second thought, DON'T give it a rest. Keep on flailing away at the specter of brain dead Ronnie, continue to resurrect his carcass and trying to pry Obama loose from it. Don't let this die; keep trying (and failing) to explain exactly why your candidate was so quick to praise a president who despised Black people and thought that the Civil Rights Movement was one of those "excesses of the 60s" that needed to be undone. All you're doing is keeping that gaffe alive in the minds of readers and extending the damage it caused to Obama's progressive street cred.

Keep up the good work!

[unsolved999]

Has anyone noticed that Chelsea Clinton is an executive at a hedge fund. They make about 2 million dollars per year...

[ultomatt]

In the continuing din regarding Obama's Reagan ass kissing, are the following words that are the damning words in his comments regarding Reagan and the America that was ready for his trickle down "philosophy" that presumed crumbs might, on rare occasions, fall from the plates of the filthy rich, and be scooped up by the unclean masses (aka the poor)...

"...excesses of the 1960s and 1970s..."

No one is asking what the hell he meant by this comment. In the discussion of his Reagan comments, this line has been forgotten. However, it is, to me, the crux of what he was saying, and it was very much a slap at civil rights, affirmative action, feminism, pro-choice among other "excesses". What other "excesses" might he be referring to in this comment? It's obviously about the cultural shift that took place, and so enraged the right wing that they made it their solemn duty to "win back" America by utterly destroying it. And somehow, Obama is trying to tap into this. I have no idea why, other than political expediency.

All this said, Obama would be a better President than Hillary, but if you gave me my choice of one of the three, it would be Edwards. Overall though, I'm not going to vote for anyone, because it's all a fucking shell game anyway, and no matter who wins, we lose.

[teahead]

Reagan shifted the electorate hard right.

Clinton kept it there.

Bush W shifted it even more so.

[lynnn]

Glass-STeagall poeple, come on Bill sold us all out. Housing Crisis? Look it up please, then you will understand why we all need to fight for anyone but these two.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_bubble_economy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

[ndolomar]

It is only fair to mention that had it not been for the Internet Boom of the '90s, his presidency may not have been as highly regarded. Too many armchair pundits are parsing what Obama said and blatantly ignoring that both Clintons consistently have praised Republicans/Republican ideas -- whereas Obama merely observed that those ideas came during a sociologically transitional period. This really underscores the reports that Obama supporters tend to have college educations and earn more annually. The way he spoke reminded me of an old professor of mine who made cogent, objective observations so people could do critical thinking. The way the media and the Clinton campaign has mischaracterized what was said reminds me of the one person in class who didn't want to learn...the equivalent of making a stupid joke and diluting the meaning of a statement. This doesn't mean Obama wasn't pandering to moderates and conservatives -- he probably very well knew the Clintons would mischaracterize his statement, expecting at some point the media would pick up on the fact the Clintons themselves said far more positive things about Reagan -- not to mention Hillary's past as an anti-Civil Rights "Goldwater Girl" Republican. Sadly, this race has turned into something very ugly that likely will mar the Democratic Party for a long time.

[snesich]

It was more than the pro-Reagan comments Clinton made in 1991 and 1992. How many people remember a speech that Bill Clinton gave, somewhere around the middle of his term, where he spelled out three or four things he agreed with Ronald Reagan about.

He then went on to say, "Let's hear it for Ronald Reagan" and started applauding, encouraging his audience to do the same.

It was disgusting at the time. It's even more disgusting to see Clinton shamelessly distorting Barack Obama's words while hoping no one will remember his much more explicit, much stronger compliments to Reagan in his own past.

[facemn]

83% of the people on this site http://www.barackobamacentral.com say they will NOT vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. 8% say they will, 7% are undecided.

[AnninCA]

I read this hoping to get some insight into Obama's thinking.

Alas. Not happening.

[PostingPopulist]

ARI - - - Thank you for speaking the truth in an election cycle otherwise littered with falsehoods and lazy reporting and corporate media whitewash.