Agnostic.com

3 1

"The 1990s original had audiences entranced by a seductive Southerner, Clinton, who under the guidance of the Democratic Leadership Council rebranded his party as the "new Democrats," which apparently translates into "Republicans." Clinton cut social programs, ended "welfare as we know it" by making single mothers work low-income jobs without child care, signed a massively destructive and draconian crime bill into law, deregulated the financial industry, and approved NAFTA. Democrats throughout the mediocre commentariat largely applauded, on the grounds that right-wing policies with a friendlier face were the only way Democrats could win or maintain power, and prevent another Reagan-like figure from seizing control of the country.

After all, they asked, wouldn't you rather have Clinton, with his paeans to social liberalism, administrative proficiency and obvious intelligence, than George H.W. Bush? Sure — but then along came Bush's son, holding the White House door open for the ghoulish likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and proving himself far worse than his father. Two horrific wars, the criminal ineptitude of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, and the financial crash created fertile conditions for radical reform, but instead the "hopey-changey" Obama administration committed the first error of national politics. They failed to act on the keen insight of the aforementioned Cheney, who once told a defiant Republican senator, "We don't negotiate with ourselves.""

WilliamCharles 8 Dec 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Sums it up quite well, how if you keep settling for the lesser evil, the evil keeps getting worse over time. Also a great description of how the duopoly works.

Still kills me how truth-tellers are in short supply, largely because it is those parroting the official narrative who generally are rewarded.

@WilliamCharles Telling truth to power, about power, usually means making you poorer and opening your reputation to attack as a kook or at least disloyal to America.

0

Somehow your short and concise summation changed my opinion of Clinton, even though I've heard it all before countless times. He was STILL better than any 'real' Republican, I maintain, even back then. Today, someone like George H.W. Bush would be laughed off the stage. Republicans now are downright fascist; in even saying that I feel foolish and trite. Like, duh!
Back then Republicans and Democrats could at least TALK to each other. Not so today...it's downright scary.

0

“Clinton, who under the guidance of the Democratic Leadership”

Hahahaahahahah

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:564044
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.