I spent my day at work trying to avoid a nervous breakdown. Between the impatient histrionic sighing and watch-checking of customers in line, and the snippy managers who were too busy to come help me expedite the shortening of said line, I found myself alone at the register, wondering where I went wrong (probably the point at which I decided to be an English major) and what happened to that sweet dot-com job I was supposed to get (it dissolved into the ether of an economic recession, along with millions of other such opportunities).

So it probably wasn�t the best idea to pick up and flip through Paul Begala�s latest book, It�s Still The Economy, Stupid, which outlines just how fantastically GWB has managed to destroy what was once a robust economy. I had always suspected as much, but it wasn�t until I began looking at Begala�s numbers that I realized just how royally Bush had managed to flush the prosperity of the nineties directly down the shitter:

When he took office in 2001, George W Bush inherited the strongest economy in American history. He inherited the largest federal budget surplus in American history�and the prospect of paying off the entire national debt in just eight years. He inherited a strong dollar and sound fiscal policy. He inherited a nation whose economy was so strong that commentators who just a decade before were predicting American decline were now complaining about American dominance. And yet, Dubya blew it. Squandered everything he'd inherited from President Clinton. (1)

... And, even though it's only been two years, memories fade. The Republican blame machine has been working overtime, hammering away relentlessly at American's accomplishments, hoping you'll forget the winning ways and braod prosperity of the Clinton Era. (4)

Begala pulls out some numbers that succinctly prove his point, focusing on the twin economic indicators of employment and poverty. 22.88 million new jobs were generated between 1992 and 2000, more than had ever before been created under a single administration. More jobs than both Bush Senior and Reagan managed to create in twelve years. 77,000 Americans were lifted out of poverty in Reagan's eight years, compared to 8.2 million in Cinton's. It was the biggest reduction in the poverty rate since LBJ's administration. Begala believes the crux of the disparity lies in the difference between the strategy Reagan used of pushing for temporary economic booms for the wealthier, versus a sustained period of economic growth for the majority, wherein all boats rise together.

And I am especially glad, by the way, that Begala decided to stick up for Clinton. The American people have a short-term memory, and just a few months of right-wing hatemongering is a pretty effective amnesiac. By the summer of 2001, blinkered by that whopping $300 tax cut (and that was just the rich getting the $300�the middle-class got much less of that already-paltry sum, and people living below the poverty line, such as myself, got nothing), the public, so easily swayed by the pundits on Fox News�had forgotten all about just how good they had it in the Nineties. All they can remember about Clinton anyway is Lewinsky, because it happened to be the most mediapathic morsel ever served up to a country of depraved scandal addicts, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with the man�s ability to govern. �He got a blowjob, so he must have been a bad president.�

Yes, it appears the American people are willing to let a president get away with just about anything�raping the environment, making backroom deals with oil companies, stealing an election�just so long as he doesn�t cheat on his wife. And if he does cheat on his wife, she�d better not forgive him and try to save their marriage. Adulterers like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott just hate to see a marriage patched back together. I�ve long pondered just what it is that makes people hate Clinton so much. I mean, I�ve never seen liberals rip into Reagan (who sold arms and supplies to the very people who would, fifteen years later, fly commercial airliners into the World Trade Center) or Nixon (who committed burlgary! that�s burglary, people) or even Henry Kissinger (who can�t travel to certain foreign countries because he is still wanted for war crimes there)�with the vitriol they unleash on Clinton. The only conclusion I can come to is that they are jealous�they�re jealous because the man made a big mistake (a big, stupid, emabarrassing, tacky, demoralizing mistake). And he fessed up to it, and his wife forgave him for it, as did the bulk of his constituency. I wouldn't say he "got away with it," as so many people whine, because he was impeached, let's not forget, and no one's going to argue that his presidency hasn't been permanently tarnished. But even after the turmoil of 1998, he continued to govern effectively right up until the end of his term, at which point he handed his successor a relatively pristine economic outlook. But apparently all it takes to completely destroy a president�s legacy is a little indiscretion. I�ll admit that it was about the stupidest thing he could have done. I was ashamed. And angry. It was so tacky, and it made his attackers' jobs so easy. But Begala puts it in perspective:

One of the most amusing things to watch in Washington these days is the right-wing blowhards trying to blame President Clinton for the wave of corporate crime that's been sweeping America. As these pages prove, the record is clear: President Clinton and his administration fought the Republicans from the first day to the last to prevent corporate rip-offs. And, as more than one expert has sad, had Clinton's reforms been enacted, there would have been no Enron. ...

So, stymied by the facts, the right blames Bill Clinton's philandering for corporate America's lawlessness. ... The logic goes like this: Once Clinton became the first man in the world to cheat on his wife, the decent men of Corporate American were so shaken, so rocked, so scandalized that they decided to loot their companies, cheat their investors and rip off their workers. ...

As Peter Beinart pointed out in the New Republic, to suggest that corporate swindlers became greedy because Clinton was amorous, you'd have to believe that Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, who pillaged in the Age of Reagan, "lost their moral bearings because the Gipper was a divorc� who neglected his children." Still, foam-at-the-mouth Clinton haters argue, Clinton should be responsible because, as president, he set the moral climate. ... Okay, Beinart replies, if we're going to blame Clinton's sin for corporate criminality, don't we have to give Clinton credit for everything that went right morally in American under his watch? When Bill Clinton was in the White House teen pregnancy fell 22 percent. The crime rate fell to its lowest levels in a generation. Welfare rolls were cut by nearly half.

Clinton's private sinfulness notwithstanding, he and his administration worked tirelessly to protect us from corporate crooks, while the Republicans did everything but drive the getaway car for the bandits. Maybe that's why they want to blame it all on Clinton. ... I'll tell you this: If I had to choose my sinners, I'd rather my president be in bed with a young woman than with Enron. (85-86)

And that's the thing. The Lewinsky thing sucked, but it�s not Watergate. It�s not Iran-Contra, or, as we shall no doubt see in the coming months and years, Enron or Harken-Halliburton. Not by a long shot. The American people did not and are not suffering because Clinton got off with someone besides his wife. But they are�I am�suffering because of Enron. They are suffering because of tax cuts for the rich, tax hikes for the middle class, the dissolution of social services, and the repeal of federal funding for education and healthcare. I�d like to think that, in a hundred years, schoolchildren will look back on the Clinton era, and the subsequent backlash against it, and wonder what the goddamn fuss was all about.

0 Comments

Back & Forth