|
ABC's report on HRC's Wal-Mart board tenure is a reminder for me just how far gone this country was when the Clintons were climbing to the top of the politcal ladder in this country. It's also another signpost, for me at least, that we need to do our best to make a break with this sad aspect of our political, social and economic history.
I was just breaking into the workplace as a business writer in the early 80s. This was the dawn of the Reagan Revolution, and it's impossible to overstate the pro-business, anti-government, anti-union mood of that time. Reagan kicked off his presidency by busting PATCO, the air traffic controllers union, much to glee of the media and every mean-spirited managment type in the country. Anybody who depended on corporations for a paycheck back then had to clam up whenever the topic of unions was raised.
I can imagine how difficult it was for any progressive-minded public offical to survive politically back then, especially in a place like Arkansas where their one point of economic pride was Wal-Mart. I view Hillary's tenure on the board of Wal-Mart with a fair amount of sympathy. I'm sure, in her mind, that as long as she pushed for a better deal for women and got Wal-Mart to buy into recycling, she thought she was accomplishing something of value. If you watch the ABC tape with the board honcho screaming about unions being blood-sucking parasites to much applause, you can see why she may have kept quiet. We ALL kept quiet in those environments back then. There was no other way to survive them.
When Bill became President, the Reaganized mood still prevailed. Outrage at the deficit and the betrayal of fiscal conservative values is what propelled Ross Perot's candidacy and got him nearly 20% of the vote in 1992 election. There's a lot of disagreement on whether Perot helped get Clinton elected, but there's no doubt that Clinton felt he had to play defense against a still-energized, Reagan-inspired movement in this country. In order to survive politcally, there's a good argument that he had to put Al Gore to work on downsizing government, embrace free trade almost unconditionally, push a welfare reform bill that had a mean-spirited side to it and make "the era of big government in over" the most memorable line of his presidency.
And, all the while, I cheered, as did most Democrats. Why? Because it was impossibly hard to get into the White House as a Democrat back then, and Bill Clinton always managed to stay one step ahead of the wolf pack. He was smarter than them, and watching a Democrat continually school Republicans like Gingrich was a source of pride for us. He also managed to accomplish some significant things. His tax hike on the wealthy helped restore fiscal balance even if it also helped cost us the Congress in 1994. He got fair-minded legislation like the Family & Medical Leave Act through an often hostile Congress. He was competent at the business of government and, most important for me, he was intellectually serious about foreign affairs, and represented us with skill and intelligence abroad. Our global image back then was exponentially greater than it is today.
But this was a bruising presidency, and Bill handed his opponents too many opportunities for payback. It's clear to me now that the Clintons emerged from the whole experience embittered, hungry for revenge, and, unfortunately for them and us, intent on fighting the last war from a defensive position. They have spent the last eight years enriching themselves, which is what post-presidencies are usually about. They are older, wealthier and angrier than they were in 1992. They are and will be quick to cut deals because they know better. They are and will be secretive, because they don't trust the public to be able to think intelligently about the truth.
Most important, they have lost the ability to go over the heads of the media, connect with people and build the political capital that is needed for change. This is what Reagan did and it drove us crazy. He was the teflon man first and foremost because he was loved. The media backed off because they feared popular rejection. If we can ever find a candidate with those qualities, we should hold on for dear life.
I have supported Barack Obama from the start not because I hate the Clintons, but because I believe if we have a chance to select a leader who isn't deformed and tainted by the 80's and 90's, which was a period of Republican rule, be it real or psychological, we should take it. When the Boston Globe endorsed Obama, they had a line about Clinton being more attuned to the limitations of government because of her experience and Obama being more aware of its possibilities because of his relative youth. That sums it up beautifully for me. Plus he does have the ability to inspire and do that thing that Ronnie did: connect.
The Reagan Revoultion is finally over. People are finally ready to accept that they need government to look out for them, to think and act strategically on big issues like health care, energy and the environment. They're finally ready to hear us; let's turn the page.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
