When I listen to Bill Clinton try to rationalize many of his now-unpopular policies and decisions as president, I begin to hear lyrics in the back of my brain.
There is no pain you are receding
A distant ship smoke on the horizon
You are only coming through in waves
Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying
If he didn’t want to re-litigate his presidency, he should have used whatever influence he has with his wife to convince her not to run. If he wants to defend what happened to be people of color because of his crime bill, or if he wants to defend the results of his deregulatory schemes for the financial sector, he’s going to discover that no one really has any sympathy for him. The context of the times is lost, the upsides of the tradeoffs are gone. Older people have become numb to his explanations, and they make no sense to young people who didn’t live through the 1990’s.
I don’t really have a problem with him pointing out that when he walked into the Oval Office he faced a country racked with the crack epidemic, gang violence, and white racial backlash. I don’t mind him reminding us that there’s nothing very sympathetic about people who utilize young teenagers to work in their violent crack-dealing network and teach them how to kill their rivals. Call them predators, super-predators, criminals, or dickheads, it makes little difference to me. They belonged in prison, and no one should dispute that, least of all the people in the communities they victimized.
But people don’t criticize the crime bill for putting violent child-exploiting gangsters in prison. And they don’t appreciate the kind of politics that appeases white racial backlash by demonizing blacks, which is what the tough-on-crime messaging of the early Clinton administration often did, and was intended to do. Clinton simply doesn’t have the credibility anymore to speak on these issues, which is why he can’t really win even if what he says would be defensible coming out of someone else’s mouth.
As a political matter, Clinton’s presidency is now a distant ship remembered by the left primarily for its shortcomings rather than its strengths. The New Democrat energy that propelled the venture is a spent force.
I think Clinton often gets a bit of raw deal, but that’s my objective assessment. Politically, he’s a liability in the primaries, and he has no clue how to deal with that.
So if his wife can’t run on Bill’s record and her (very real) partnership there, what can she run on? Her middle east record? That she is a woman? That she can raise a lot of Wall street money to bribe super-delegates with?
It would seem only the last two.
In LISTEN, LIBERAL Thomas Frank points out that violent crimes had peaked before Clinton’s war on the poor. Many sociologists connect the right to choose with the drop in violent crimes.
I’ve seen that. It does seem reasonable that unwanted unaffordable kids would wind up in street gangs, looking for the family they crave.
Near half of our present population of kids is unaffordable, according to the poverty numbers…
But of course, we have to put even more money in the hands of the job creators.
of crime with lead poisoning.
The lead poisoning explanation is too pat. It’s better than Levitt and Dubner’s abortion explanation. But crime is a complex thing.
No other explanation — not gun proliferation (or lack thereof), not income inequality, not the crack epidemic, not anything — explains the post-70s international crime waves as much as lead poisoning.
Lead poisoning not only tracks country by country, but it also tracks city-by-city. Hell, some people have even made blood-lead overlays by transportation routes. Not only that, but it has a strong biological mechanism and fits the Bedford-Hill criteria for an epidemic.
You can tut-tut it all you want, but keep in mind: you’ll never get any better than correlation. And every other factor I’ve ever seen that’s more scientific than ‘video games reduced/increased crime, yes?’ explains crime struggles to be causal. Internationally or locally expandable? Don’t make me laugh.
The evidence I’ve seen discussed leads me to be persuaded that the reductions of lead poisoning in children is likely the most important factor of multiple factors which explained the sharp drop in crime rates. I’m exceedingly pleased that our movement has argued persistently and somewhat successfully against the chosen argument by many that our absurd incarceration rates were responsible for the crime drops.
The correlation focuses on crime statistics based upon leaded gasoline. What is telling for me is how crime statistics increase and decrease around leaded gasoline usage and then prohibition. I.E. countries that began to phase out and prohibit leaded gasoline saw their crime rates drop earlier than countries that did so later.
Country A phases out/prohibits leaded gasoline 5 years before Country B, and 8 years before Country C.
Country A gets a drop in crime 5 years before Country B, and 8 years before Country C.
I mean, holy fuck, a country of 250,000,000 people were routinely burning lead and putting it into the air, water, and soil, for 50+ years. Crime rates went up and up and up for 50 years. A country of 250,000,000 stops routinely burning lead and putting it into the air, water, and soil, and 18 years later the crime rates plummet, everywhere, at basically the same exact time.
Correlation isn’t causation, unless it is.
arguing that lead poisoning was the sole causative factor completely controlling and explaining crime rates, that would be too “pat”. (Has anyone done that? If so, I’m not aware of it.)
I see deathtongue already made the case that, among plausibly causative correlations one could look at, it probably holds up as well or better than any other hypothesis going.
At least the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board will leap to his defense. Maybe we can expect The National Review next.
And there it is. The PermaGov, thick as thieves when threatened, squabbling amongst themselves over who gets the biggest cut when they are not threatened.
Thank you, seabe.
S.
The New Democrat energy that propelled the venture is a spent force
I would love it to be true, but I’m a bit skeptical about that one. For one, their money is still good with the Democratic party.
To me, it appears like the DLC/new dem positioning has morphed more into a behind-the scenes governing strategy rather than an electoral strategy, but the corporate wing of the party (essentially what new dems always were at the core) is still very much the Democratic establishment.
The result of trying to obfuscate some of their governing philosophy from the electorate is some dissonance between the populist wing of the party and the establishment’s governance. A good example of this dissonance is Debbie Wasserman Schultz trying to undermine the Obama administration’s CFPB on payday lending rules while getting endorsed by Obama against a more progressive opponent. Sure it might be eleventy dimensional chess, but on the face it just looks incoherent and a bit corrupt to me.
I’m discussing the New Democrats as a politically effective force that even the left acknowledged (however grudgingly) had brought victory and progress rather than humiliation and defeat.
When Clinton triangulated after 1994 midterm wipeout, there was something cunning and admirable about it, especially since it won him a second term.
Today, no one sees it for anything but a dreadful and malodorous sellout.
In other words, the Democrats did need to demonstrate that they were aware of the crime wave and they couldn’t just keep defending the welfare program as it them existed, but no one gives them credit for that shit anymore.
All they care about are the consequences, never mind the alternative consequences that were avoided.
The DLC died when they didn’t stand up to oppose the invasion of Iraq.
That doesn’t mean that rich people aren’t often liberals with an interest in Democratic politics. It just means that the left has no patience for Clintonism at this point because it’s no longer needed.
The DLC died when they didn’t stand up to oppose the invasion of Iraq.
Huh? No. The DLC died when they bailed out the banks and did nothing for Main Street. And did not convict a single banker.
You might be too young to remember, but AUMF was really the catalyst for the rise of the modern left; Dean was the canary in the coal mine.
Er, no, I am plenty old enough. LOL
You and Booman are conflating neocons with neoliberals. It is no coincidence that DLC morphed into Third Way and Occupy erupted in 2011. It is always about the economy. We are still governing with neoliberalism.
Obama might be a mild neocon??? More like stuck in that morass. Hillary definitely leans that way.
Bill Clinton used to be the darling of the Democratic party. 2 very successful terms in office, could really do no wrong. Now that he’s campaigning for Hillary, how the grass roots turn on him. He was a lousy president, he’s off the rails, he’s old, he’s pathetic, he’s washed up, he’s a liability for Hillary. Another prime example of the Democrats eating their own.
Agree with this comment, Boo. Clinton wasn’t totally wrong in all he said, but his comments seemed to come from a different time and place. Ironically, as masterful of a politician as he’s been, primaries that his wife is running in don’t seem to be his “bag.”
I still don’t appreciate all the stuff I see being spouted about he and his policies. He left office an extremely popular president, and would have kicked the shit out of W if he could’ve run for a 3rd term. I don’t think there’d have been Obama if Clinton hadn’t made it “safe” for a lot of people to vote Dem again.
Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and would have been president had the U.S. Supreme Court not stopped the counting of votes in Florida. In 2004, John Kerry just needed Ohio to win the presidency and there were voting irregularities in that state that year.
As an NPR commentator pointed out re: Bill and the BLM comment, when he campaigns for her things tend to become about Bill not about Hillary’s campaign. that’s a problem
Bill looked bewildered in this week’s confrontation at the Hillary campaign event. Totally in the bubble, removed from the impact of the bill Sanders voted for and he signed. Bernie has shown a proper understanding of the impact of this bill, while being a tad defensive about it himself. Sanders certainly is not joining Bill in retreating to a rerun of the “Superpredator” rhetoric. Much worse for his wife’s campaign, because Hillary has not been doing this during the campaign.
It was awfully predictable that activists allied with the BLM movement would protest at a campaign event in New York. Unless Hillary’s campaign team wants to continue to risk having these hurtful incidents repeated, they should reconsider Bill’s placements in the campaign.
yes, I think Bill does not help her. One reason I oppose her candidacy – and I appreciate your thoughtful dialog on the issue over recent weeks threads – is I read it as backdoor to a 3rd term for Bill. that’s sort of the way Argentina used term limits. anyway, I think the law should be changed that spouses cannot run for president [unless they divorce]. perhaps except for widow/ widower as we’ve seen in the senate
Thanks for the kind words.
I’d just respond to one of your points here by suggesting that Hillary would get very little benefit of the doubt if she and Bill had divorced, nor will she get much benefit of the doubt if Bill disappears from the campaign, nor would she get the benefit of the doubt if Bill is not a prominent spokesperson if he becomes the First Husband.
People inclined to do so, the media most definitely included, would smoothly move to Bill’s absence as “evidence” that he wields even more influence than we could have imagined, and his public retreat is because of the Clinton’s secrecy blah blah…
Can’t say that this millstone for Hillary’s campaign and potential Presidency was an unpredictable outcome, but it’s disappointing nonetheless. It’s another example of The View From Nowhere public discourse, Clinton Division, and people can make a choice to fall for it or not.
IMHO, it begins to look a little like a banana republic, when spouses run for the presidency.
Had Laura Bush ran for President, yes, definitely Banana Republic.
For what it is worth, HRC had a career as an attorney, was a Senator for a relatively populous state, and has also had a stint as Secretary of State.
You can criticize her voting record as Senator and actions as Secretary of State, as I do, but she certainly has much more credentials than “X’s wife”.
You mean this Laura Bush?
http://winningdemocrats.com/laura-bush-slams-the-gop-says-shed-rather-vote-for-hillary-than-a-republ
ican/
If that is George W. Bush’s wife, then obviously that is who I meant.
That Laura Bush isn’t a raving fucking lunatic and would vote for HRC isn’t a good enough reason for me to vote for Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, though if it is for you, fair enough.
You read FAR too much into my reply.
I was just pointing out her comments nothing more.
Sometimes I don’t just read between the lines, but through them.
No offense meant, just sayin’ that Laura Bush as President is ludicrous on it’s face, whereas HRC is an experienced politician who has some semblance of understanding of what the Presidency requires.
Haha, simply spectacular use of art lyrics as an metaphor! But the Role of Bill is just another unprecedented wrinkle that will have to be dealt with in order to have an HRC candidacy/presidency. Doesn’t look like Team HRC has thought through this “role” yet. Or Bill just won’t play the part envisioned…
He can’t just be the First Hubby, as past First Ladies have been. He ain’t just gonna pick, say, child obesity as his core issue. Hard to see what they come up with. Maybe Policy Explainer Extraordinaire?
So is having an ex-prez padding around the WH gonna be an asset or liability? Who’s policy is this anyway?, etc. etc. No One knows, we’re in uncharted waters. It will be a media obsession. On the other hand, the Bush crime family dealt with the dynasty issue pretty successfully.
Anyhow, while the crowd went wild when Bill introduced Barack in 2008, the bloom seems off the rose now. Too many roads of failure emanating from his watch. Balancing the budget was his core success, and his supremes selections. But lots of other 1/3 of a loaf results, a lot of meeting Repub demolitionists more than halfway, and some simply inexplicable failures such as ensuring no regulation of derivatives and commodity futures.
What do you do with a problem like Slick Willie? Good luck, Team!
He’ll be too busy checking out the interns. Hillary had better make sure they are all male or gay.
Not sure you want to make that claim in the unlikely event you ever find yourself in a conversation with “Jeb!”.
Or perhaps it hinges on the meaning of “successfully” (in particular, whose success?).
The Crisis Magazine
@thecrisismag
Michelle Alexander thanks Bill Clinton for showing us what’s wrong with the racial politics of the ‘New Democrats’
Dante Boykin @DanteB4u
Apologists for the crime bill and welfare reform now want to pretend Bill Clinton didn’t have veto power? He signed!
On point comment from POU:
I’ve never liked Bill Clinton so much as the night of his speech at the 2012 Democratic Convention.
I used to see the Clinton presidency as it sounds like Booman does: Propelled by the energy of the so-called “New Democrats”. With time, I’m less convinced that was the case.
Nicol Rae’s “Southern Democrats” describes the relationship that grew up between Clinton and Al From and his crew as a complicated matter. Clinton was the poster child, not the architect of the New Democratic centrism. Which is not at all to say that he didn’t further the cause: He became its most accomplished champion. I would simply argue that instead of being propelled by the energy of the New Democrats, the New Democrats instead rode the wave of their star apostle.
Until it crashed. Gore/Lieberman was a concise expression of what New Democrats told us was supposed to work, electorally. When it didn’t, and when no star emerged to pick up the torch, the New Democratic movement entered a phase of terminal decay. It lacked a host organism, and had no vitality of its own.
I don’t expect Mr. Clinton to develop a disinterested opinion of his own legacy. But it’s fair to expect him to understand that when he appears as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton, he’s doing the campaign a disservice if he allows himself to be baited into a debate on his own policies and administration. It’s not about him – not anymore.
Look: under Bill Clinton, the incarceration rate went from ‘bullshit dictatorship high’ that it was in the 80s to ‘OMG even unreconstructed Maoists in China are telling you you went too far’.
Talking about mass incarceration under Clinton like it was some kind of tragic rearguard action that saved more lives than it ruined requires extraordinary justification. Because… what, exactly, was the impetus for jailing more people than fucking fascist Thailand? Like, if we stopped at Cuba or Saudi Arabia level, you might be able to make a lifeboat ethics argument. But I claim that when you easily exceed every non-bullshit nation in history that didn’t explicitly embrace genocide in the ‘proportion of people placed in jail/prison’, you really lost the plot.
“Why did you firebomb that orphanage?”
“Because zombies bit them. That was the only way.”
“Yes, but only about a third got infected. The other two-thirds were safely quarantined.”
“IT WAS THE ONLY WAY GODDAMMIT THERE’S A FUCKING ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE AND THINGS NEED TO BE DONE.”
His example of a middle class jobs program? We are a service economy thanks to the economic incentives introduced in that period, no?
Eh, not really. By the time the Reagan administration started, the transition was largely over.
An interesting comment on that graph from the comments:
I read a varied interpretation to the lines on the graphs presented here.
In the beginning years of this analysis, a wage-earner could obtain services such as “domestic servants to waiters, blacksmiths to cobblers, and barbers” simply through the provision of food to eat and a place for the worker to lay their head. Following the Civil War, the growth in the service sector indicates that wage earners had to start paying for these services.
The post WWII slowdown in the expansion of the service sector coincides with the popularity of a traditional family structure where one wage-earner provided currency while another adult(s) provided services without wages. This social structure was also facilitated psychologically by the New Deal arrangement, assuring Americans that the vulnerable would be protected, the needy provided for.
But come the late 60’s, when requesting a verification of their value to society, the non-wage earning service providers were told by the courts that they in fact had no commercial value. And so the Great Disruption of the 70’s tipped our society up over itself, and in doing so paid-for service jobs were created to replace the positions that were indignantly (and I think regrettably) abandoned. Note how the line on the graph takes a sharp upward slope.
Everyone finds forced labor reprehensible and counter to the nature of things. But the privatization of obligations to our families and to our communities has yet to be fully evaluated. (Victoria Wilson)
There is no inherent reason that today’s service jobs cannot provide solid, middle-class compensations and working conditions. Service workers are not less skilled as a class than the manufacturing workers of previous generations. I would even posit the claim that many jobs working with the public are much more challenging than many factory production line jobs.
Government policies have led the way, along with nonstop corporate propaganda, to make “low-wage jobs” a concept that hundreds of millions of Americans have internalized. This concept is false; there is no such thing as a job which should pay poverty wages and benefits. Of course there are jobs which should pay more than others, but we can do better than having people work jobs which keep them poverty-stricken in the wealthiest nation in the history of Earth.
As centerfielddj mentioned, there’s no reason why modern service jobs can’t become the manufacturing jobs of the 40s-70s. Remember: before unionism and socialist programs, manufacturing jobs used to be so shitty that they caused the biggest non-military domestic uprising in United States’ history and directly led to Marxism.
Communities suffering from declines in farming, mining, timber-work and manufacturing are now begging for prisons to be built in their backyards. The economic restructuring that began in the troubled decade of the 1980s has had dramatic social and economic consequences for rural communities and small towns. Together the farm crises, factory closings, corporate downsizing, shift to service sector employment and the substitution of major regional and national chains for local, main-street businesses have triggered profound change in these areas. The acquisition of prisons as a conscious economic development strategy for depressed rural communities and small towns in the United States has become widespread. Hundreds of small rural towns and several whole regions have become dependent on an industry which itself is dependent on the continuation of crime-producing conditions. (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/building.html)
C’mon, man.
link.
Slow down. Which party controlled the majority of statehouses and at least one wing of Congress from the late 70s to 1994?
I mean, yes, Bill Clinton’s bill only threw a few empty Big Mac boxes onto those fires of Gehenna that was mass incarceration. But the Democrats, especially the DLC and their New Democrats, were complicit in that atrocity. And considering that Bill Clinton was chairman of the DLC when those policies began to really get ramped up… yeah. He’s responsible as anyone.
Yes….During the 1980s that figure increased to an annual average of 16 and in the 1990s, it jumped to 25 new prisons annually.[3] Between 1990 and 1999, 245 prisons were built in rural and small town communities — with a prison opening somewhere in rural America every fifteen days.[4]
Texas went on an orgy in the 90s.
Wasn’t building new prisons necessary to relieve overcrowding?
I remember reading that Cook county jail had a runner (or runners) who informed the Cook county court judges when the jail was full. From that point on, the judges issued suspended sentences no matter what the merits of the case.
Asking a question not stating a fact.
LOL Way to go–prisoners are counted as voters for redistricting. Another finger on the scale for rural Republicans.
Really! I didn’t know that.
not just the prison building but the dynamic of private prisons – now there’s a serious problem. lots of constructive material on what was wrong, and went wronger