Clinton "reason" for the nation going right?

[PainRack]

A random statement by a poster about how Obama policies were essentially Reagan or Republican, and how far right both parties had swung that they are now being blasted as socialists got me thinking...


While conservatives under Reagan did start the nation swing to the right, it was President Clinton who made it politically impossible for any Democrat not to become "centralist", the New way. Clinton success in forging a new way by rationalist social security, implementing don't ask don't tell, a balanced budget, brady gun reform did mean that the Democratic party start a slide towards the "centre". This was balanced of course by the fact that there was an assault weapon ban, the budget was balanced by tax increases and etc........ but those programmes and attitudes didn't survive under Bush. But the swing towards the right did.



So, did Clinton start the swing towards the Right for the Democratic party?

[Simon_Jester]

Clinton saw the times moving and moved with them rather than trying to fight them.

Could he have made them stop moving by fighting them? I'm not sure. Remember that Clinton tried and failed to get health care reform- he couldn't even get something like Obamacare accomplished, and that was before the 1994 election.

Fundamentally, America from about 1992-2007 was a relatively comfortable place for the most politically active classes, one that lent itself to the growth of the political landscape we have now. I don't think the shift to the right we've seen in those years can be attributed to any one person or policy.

[Eframepilot]

Clinton did what he had to do to be successful in a very Republican era. The Republicans took Congress early in his first term and kept control of it continuously despite all of their unforced errors (shutdown, impeachment, Gingrich in general) all the way up to 2006 when Americans had finally had enough of them due to the Iraq catastrophe.

[Surlethe]

The shift rightward began in the late 1960s (actually, on July 2, 1964) and culminated in the Republican sweep in 1994. The political climate when Clinton matured as a politician was very different from the climate thirty years earlier; he is a product of his times, rather than the other way around. In the sense that he cemented the new center-right consensus (by backing down on health care, passing NAFTA, continuing deregulation, welfare reform, unilateral military action, etc.) he acted to reinforce the rightward shift, but if you want to interpret it that way, he was not a cause of change but a feedback loop reinforcing it.

Put differently: if Harkin, Tsongas, or Brown had won in 1992, it's not obvious that the US political climate would be any more liberal than it is.

[Darth Wong]

The cultural shift to the right is an interesting phenomenon. One can blame American political machinations, but a lot of these ideas have spread about the world. I actually think American mass media is extremely right-wing and that their relentless promotion of right-wing ideas has affected everyone's thinking.

People love to point to gay rights as an example of left-wing thinking promoted by Hollywood, but that's just because so many people in Hollywood are gay themselves. Self-interest has always created exceptions to right-wing politics (just look at how eagerly southern states accept federal military-industrial money, or how eagerly midwestern states accept farm subsidies).

But if you step away from self-interest issues, Hollywood promotes a pretty consistently right-wing agenda. In Hollywood movies, small town people are almost always more wholesome than big city people, with better values. The solution to violence is always vengeance. Civil rights laws are nothing more than an obstruction in the path of justice. Liberals are usually fools who are too stupid to see villains for what they are. Scientists are usually socially maladjusted fools whose arrogance blinds them to reality. When someone says "there must be a rational explanation", he is always proven wrong. Hell, the entire genre of westerns is basically conservative thinking in story form.

[Rogue 9]

The shift rightward began in the late 1960s (actually, on July 2, 1964)

What, the Civil Rights Act?

[Simon_Jester]

The cultural shift to the right is an interesting phenomenon. One can blame American political machinations, but a lot of these ideas have spread about the world. I actually think American mass media is extremely right-wing and that their relentless promotion of right-wing ideas has affected everyone's thinking.

People love to point to gay rights as an example of left-wing thinking promoted by Hollywood, but that's just because so many people in Hollywood are gay themselves. Self-interest has always created exceptions to right-wing politics (just look at how eagerly southern states accept federal military-industrial money, or how eagerly midwestern states accept farm subsidies).

But if you step away from self-interest issues, Hollywood promotes a pretty consistently right-wing agenda. In Hollywood movies, small town people are almost always more wholesome than big city people, with better values. The solution to violence is always vengeance. Civil rights laws are nothing more than an obstruction in the path of justice. Liberals are usually fools who are too stupid to see villains for what they are. Scientists are usually socially maladjusted fools whose arrogance blinds them to reality. When someone says "there must be a rational explanation", he is always proven wrong. Hell, the entire genre of westerns is basically conservative thinking in story form.

The alternate interpretation is that they're producing what sells, and that the driving forces come from elsewhere. If stories in which the scientist was always right sold better than stories where the scientist was usually wrong, might Hollywood not make more such movies?

[General Mung Beans]

The simple reason why Clinton was centrist was because Americans would not elect a real liberal-McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis all lost very badly and Carter won largely by running as a moderate and running against Ford (the most colourless President since Coolidge or even Benjamin Harrison) in the wake of Watergate.

And by the nation going right I assume you mean economically-socially the nation has been going progressive straight since World War II.

As for Hollywood, it tends to Flanderize both the right and left thus you get at the same time nasty big corporations and half-crazed fundies with sinister Arabic terrorists and amoral Mengele-like scientists.

[Darth Wong]

The alternate interpretation is that they're producing what sells, and that the driving forces come from elsewhere. If stories in which the scientist was always right sold better than stories where the scientist was usually wrong, might Hollywood not make more such movies?

It doesn't have to be exclusive. Hollywood has enormous power to reinforce such associative memes, even if it isn't the exclusive source of them. Obviously, the source of them is more rural and anti-intellectual culture in general, but movies have the power to make those ideas sink in at a subconscious level.

[Celador]

Has the country become more conservative? The Republican party seems to be, but that has much more to do with a political realignment that's been happening for decades and less a reflection of how the nation as a whole as changed.

[Surlethe]

The shift rightward began in the late 1960s (actually, on July 2, 1964)

What, the Civil Rights Act?

Yes.

[Alphawolf55]

The cultural shift to the right is an interesting phenomenon. One can blame American political machinations, but a lot of these ideas have spread about the world. I actually think American mass media is extremely right-wing and that their relentless promotion of right-wing ideas has affected everyone's thinking.

People love to point to gay rights as an example of left-wing thinking promoted by Hollywood, but that's just because so many people in Hollywood are gay themselves. Self-interest has always created exceptions to right-wing politics (just look at how eagerly southern states accept federal military-industrial money, or how eagerly midwestern states accept farm subsidies).

But if you step away from self-interest issues, Hollywood promotes a pretty consistently right-wing agenda. In Hollywood movies, small town people are almost always more wholesome than big city people, with better values. The solution to violence is always vengeance. Civil rights laws are nothing more than an obstruction in the path of justice. Liberals are usually fools who are too stupid to see villains for what they are. Scientists are usually socially maladjusted fools whose arrogance blinds them to reality. When someone says "there must be a rational explanation", he is always proven wrong. Hell, the entire genre of westerns is basically conservative thinking in story form.

What movies argue against civil right laws?

[Simon_Jester]

I think he's thinking mostly of the civil liberties issues raised in police stories and such. You get a lot of cases where the criminal is a blatantly evil person exploiting his "rights" to get away with things that everyone knows he could be stopped from doing.

Look no farther than Dirty Harry for an example.

[Darth Wong]

The cultural shift to the right is an interesting phenomenon. One can blame American political machinations, but a lot of these ideas have spread about the world. I actually think American mass media is extremely right-wing and that their relentless promotion of right-wing ideas has affected everyone's thinking.

People love to point to gay rights as an example of left-wing thinking promoted by Hollywood, but that's just because so many people in Hollywood are gay themselves. Self-interest has always created exceptions to right-wing politics (just look at how eagerly southern states accept federal military-industrial money, or how eagerly midwestern states accept farm subsidies).

But if you step away from self-interest issues, Hollywood promotes a pretty consistently right-wing agenda. In Hollywood movies, small town people are almost always more wholesome than big city people, with better values. The solution to violence is always vengeance. Civil rights laws are nothing more than an obstruction in the path of justice. Liberals are usually fools who are too stupid to see villains for what they are. Scientists are usually socially maladjusted fools whose arrogance blinds them to reality. When someone says "there must be a rational explanation", he is always proven wrong. Hell, the entire genre of westerns is basically conservative thinking in story form.

What movies argue against civil right laws?

Are you serious? Countless cop movies since Dirty Harry have portrayed civil rights laws as an impediment to justice. Cops in movies routinely conduct searches without warrants, based on hunches, and of course, their hunches bear fruit and they catch the bad guys. Cops in movies will threaten violence and death on suspects, and it looks as if it's justified. Just look at "Taken" for a recent example: a perfect Hollywood illustration of the right-wing's "ticking time bomb" argument in favour of torture, civil rights violations, even flagrant violations of other countries' sovereignty. Not to mention the entire vigilante angle in Hollywood, where vigilantes solve the problems that the cops can't or won't touch. That one is virtually an entire genre unto itself.

[Alphawolf55]

The cultural shift to the right is an interesting phenomenon. One can blame American political machinations, but a lot of these ideas have spread about the world. I actually think American mass media is extremely right-wing and that their relentless promotion of right-wing ideas has affected everyone's thinking.

People love to point to gay rights as an example of left-wing thinking promoted by Hollywood, but that's just because so many people in Hollywood are gay themselves. Self-interest has always created exceptions to right-wing politics (just look at how eagerly southern states accept federal military-industrial money, or how eagerly midwestern states accept farm subsidies).

But if you step away from self-interest issues, Hollywood promotes a pretty consistently right-wing agenda. In Hollywood movies, small town people are almost always more wholesome than big city people, with better values. The solution to violence is always vengeance. Civil rights laws are nothing more than an obstruction in the path of justice. Liberals are usually fools who are too stupid to see villains for what they are. Scientists are usually socially maladjusted fools whose arrogance blinds them to reality. When someone says "there must be a rational explanation", he is always proven wrong. Hell, the entire genre of westerns is basically conservative thinking in story form.

What movies argue against civil right laws?

Are you serious? Countless cop movies since Dirty Harry have portrayed civil rights laws as an impediment to justice. Cops in movies routinely conduct searches without warrants, based on hunches, and of course, their hunches bear fruit and they catch the bad guys. Cops in movies will threaten violence and death on suspects, and it looks as if it's justified. Just look at "Taken" for a recent example: a perfect Hollywood illustration of the right-wing's "ticking time bomb" argument in favour of torture, civil rights violations, even flagrant violations of other countries' sovereignty. Not to mention the entire vigilante angle in Hollywood, where vigilantes solve the problems that the cops can't or won't touch. That one is virtually an entire genre unto itself.

Oh sorry, I thought you meant more like gay rights, equal rights. Like Civil Rights Act, kind of Civil Rights, not Patriot Act kind of rights.

[Count Chocula]

From what I recall of his presidency, it wasn't so much that Clinton was a Democrat and the backlash was what made the "ascendancy" of the Republican party possible, but the policies he enacted or attempted to enact. Plus, there was the early perception that he wouldn't have a G.H.W. Bush "read my lips" moment.

Remember HillaryCare? People (and a couple of talk show hosts) gripe about Michelle Obama's "eat your veggies and white meat to be healthy!" (or we'll change the public school menus and vending machine stock), but compared to First Lady Clinton's attempt to enact national health care in the 1990s, Michelle is small potatoes. Which are healthy if baked, with sour cream, I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter and chives (yum!) but bad Bad BAD if baked or Freedom Fried. Ol' Bill suffered a HUGE backlash on that one. Then there was the whole Waco fiasco. And the "Assault" weapons ban. And tax hikes. And using the Social Security trust fund to balance the budget. And the aspirin factory bombing retaliation for WTC 1993. And the "we don't have time to make a decision on this" episode when Special Forces had Bin Laden literally in their gun sights but couldn't get approval to take him down. And the lip-biting, "I feel your pain," televangelist style 'empathy' schtick he used. Oh yeah, and the Whitewater/Rose Law Firm shred-fest, and dead Arkansas State Troopers, and the interesting death of Vince Foster.

His impeachment for getting blow jobs from Monica Lewinski was laughable. I didn't care for the man and I still thought that was a pathetic move by the Repubs of the time. Just dumb, talk about wasting political capital! But, hey, because of Clinton we had a guy nicknamed "Newt" as Speaker of the House. I figure he won two terms because his "I'm just a slow-talking hillbilly who wants what's best for all of us" facade and backdoor willingness to deal made him the choice for both parties when it was time for his second go-around.

Was he responsible for the nation going right? Hell no. Just like Jimmy Carter before him, he was perceived as a better choice than the Republican incumbent and when voters got buyer's remorse, they flipped the House and Senate and left Billy boy in office just to see what new hilarious shit he could do. Kinda like the buyer's remorse people have over Obama right now, but I'm guessing Big O won't get a pass to a second term.

So, no. Clinton didn't make the nation go "right," he's just another installment in the "let's try someone different" school of American elections.

[Darth Wong]

What exactly was so terrible about Hillary's attempt at pushing health care reform, other than the fact that conservatives hated Hillary?

[Count Chocula]

To start, the President's wife, ANY President's wife, has absolutely zero explicit role or power in implementing policy or legislation. She's just the President's wife. She's not in the chain of command at any level. So a First Lady who holds meetings to direct a significant change in a significant portion of the nation's economy (health care) is a big no-no. I still can't figure out why Bill went along with it; I suspect that can be attributed to him being a pussy-whipped passive-aggressive personality type but that's just my amateur observation.

This is also speculation on my part, based on my growing up in and around Washington, DC and witnessing the political shenanigans: government is not efficient as a rule. That's not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Armies, navies and air forces are not efficient, but they ARE necessary. Until oh, say, 2000, you could make the same argument to justify the Post Office or Amtrak. Sending diplomats to jawbone other diplomats is not efficient, but is necessary to hopefully prevent the even greater inefficiency of war. Law enforcement is not efficient; investigating and locking up miscreants costs a lot of money, but it's necessary to prevent further personal and economic loss to citizens. It costs money to investigate counterfeiters, but if spending money on federal detectives maintains faith in a fiat currency (or any other general medium of exchange), it's worth doing.

Simply put, providing valuable services at a low cost is not in my opinion a mandate of any government. Providing inefficient (by business standards) service and controlling 1/6 of a nation's economy, when combined, looked like a disaster waiting to happen in the 1990s and still appears so to many Americans today.

[Darth Wong]

To start, the President's wife, ANY President's wife, has absolutely zero explicit role or power in implementing policy or legislation. She's just the President's wife. She's not in the chain of command at any level. So a First Lady who holds meetings to direct a significant change in a significant portion of the nation's economy (health care) is a big no-no. I still can't figure out why Bill went along with it; I suspect that can be attributed to him being a pussy-whipped passive-aggressive personality type but that's just my amateur observation.

Oh right, I forgot: presidents are supposed to appoint people they know from business to do that sort of thing, like Kenneth Lay.

This is also speculation on my part, based on my growing up in and around Washington, DC and witnessing the political shenanigans: government is not efficient as a rule. That's not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Armies, navies and air forces are not efficient, but they ARE necessary. Until oh, say, 2000, you could make the same argument to justify the Post Office or Amtrak. Sending diplomats to jawbone other diplomats is not efficient, but is necessary to hopefully prevent the even greater inefficiency of war. Law enforcement is not efficient; investigating and locking up miscreants costs a lot of money, but it's necessary to prevent further personal and economic loss to citizens. It costs money to investigate counterfeiters, but if spending money on federal detectives maintains faith in a fiat currency (or any other general medium of exchange), it's worth doing.

Precisely what do you think "efficiency" means? Hint: money that goes directly toward the accomplishment of your primary objective is not waste, even if that objective happens to be law enforcement.

Simply put, providing valuable services at a low cost is not in my opinion a mandate of any government. Providing inefficient (by business standards) service and controlling 1/6 of a nation's economy, when combined, looked like a disaster waiting to happen in the 1990s and still appears so to many Americans today.

And yet the Canadian health care system is far more efficient (measured by treating administrative overhead as waste) than the American business-led health care system.

[Count Chocula]

Oh right, I forgot: presidents are supposed to appoint people they know from business to do that sort of thing, like Kenneth Lay.

Yes, yes they are. Chain of command and all that. The appointees don't have to be businessmen, however; they can be whoever the President appoints and preferably the Senate confirms. Your example of Kenneth Lay of Enron notoriety, and his links to the Clinton White House, shows that Billy-boy was a corrupt politician (redundancy). But that's irrelevant, as Lay WAS NOT APPOINTED OR CONFIRMED TO ANY POLITICAL OFFICE. Nor was The Witch. If you want a more au courant example of the argument you made, look no farther than Obama's appointment of Jeff Immelt of GE as his top economic advisor. GE paid NO U.S. taxes last year. Yeah.

Precisely what do you think "efficiency" means? Hint: money that goes directly toward the accomplishment of your primary objective is not waste, even if that objective happens to be law enforcement.

I am not arguing that that inefficiency is unnecessary. The purpose of many government functions, such as law enforcement, is to maintain a status quo. The purpose of armed forces is also to maintain the status quo, i.e. continued existence of the state or nation being protected. While vital, those functions maintain the welfare of the citizens of a state or nation. They do not contribute to its advancement. I submit that medicine and health care, in general, is NOT a status quo industry or static entity.

The goal of medicine, from the ambulance driver to the Glaxo research scientist, is to extend human life and find better ways to heal wounds. That goal requires innovation and creativity, two words not commonly associated with government functions. Medicine is also a competitive business, which forces hospitals and research companies to make the best possible use of their resources...to operate efficiently. Canadian drugs are cheaper than those in the US because CANADIAN DOCTORS AND RESEARCHERS DIDN'T INVENT THEM...they're making or licensing cheaper copies of drugs made elsewhere including in the U.S. Or, as in Canada, the government puts a cap on the amount insurance will pay for drugs which forces drug companies to recoup costs and make some profit by shifting their R&D and marketing expenses to, oh, places like the US! Which drives up OUR health care costs. Copying other peoples' drugs and medical procedures while inventing few of your own sure sounds efficient, and so does "we'll pay this price for your drugs or you don't do business in Canada!" so points for you. And if you want an efficient health care system that is ten years behind your closest neighbor, hey that's a good way to maintain a status quo. So in Canada, your health care system makes complete sense. Not so much for us here in AFY - we typically want better stuff all the time, not the status quo, makes government-run health care unsuited for OUR SYSTEM.

And yet the Canadian health care system is far more efficient (measured by treating administrative overhead as waste) than the American business-led health care system.

I'll accept that Canadian administrative overhead is lower than ours. Your total population is also about half that of the number of people administered by United Healthcare in the US. I just took a gander at UHC's 2010 annual report, which shows operating activities as about 9% of revenues. However, I have yet to see a Canadian health care operating statement that accounts for operations/overhead like a US insurance company's financial statement. I'm not sure I'm doing an apples to apples comparison. I'd expect US admin costs to be higher (profit motive, multiple plans, 50 state plans and insurance commissions to contend with vs. 10 provinces and 3 territories in Canada), but not five times higher. Also, I don't consider overhead as waste; our HIPAA and other regulations, along with state requirements, generate more paperwork or electronwork that must be done. There are other measures of efficiency besides overhead, such as speed of service and availability of treatment that we haven't touched on, but we're way off the Clinton OT so I'll say no more.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Oh yeah the poor pharmas HAVE to pass the costs onto US consumers.


Thats why they post record profits.

[Surlethe]

From what I recall of his presidency, it wasn't so much that Clinton was a Democrat and the backlash was what made the "ascendancy" of the Republican party possible, but the policies he enacted or attempted to enact.

The policies he enacted, or attempted to enact, would have been centrist in the '50s and '60s. Nixon, after all, tried to pass UHC; Eisenhower kept taxes at unspeakable rates to pay down the debt (through bipartisan consensus, too). Even venturing abroad was bipartisan: look at Nixon extending Vietnam and Bush 1 invading Panama(!).

The fact he endured a huge right-wing backlash that robbed him of the House and Senate in 1994 testifies to how far right the US had come in those thirty years. (And I do believe that the far right believed he was a communist or socialist who stole the election even before he tried to pass "controversial" legislation.)

[Serafina]

The goal of medicine, from the ambulance driver to the Glaxo research scientist, is to extend human life and find better ways to heal wounds. That goal requires innovation and creativity, two words not commonly associated with government functions. Medicine is also a competitive business, which forces hospitals and research companies to make the best possible use of their resources...to operate efficiently.

Going into space also required "innovation and creativity" - and it was entirely funded by the government.
As for competition, why do you think there can be no competition if government funding is involved?
And keep in mind that the medical system of every single first-world country and plenty of second-world countries are doing a better job at extending human life than the US-system.

You post is just pointless talking-point drivel: "government is about the status quo, only the free market can provide innovation and creativity!", without actually looking at any evidence and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your notions. Along with the idiotic notion that medical research is limited to the US

[Coop D'etat]

The goal of medicine, from the ambulance driver to the Glaxo research scientist, is to extend human life and find better ways to heal wounds. That goal requires innovation and creativity, two words not commonly associated with government functions. Medicine is also a competitive business, which forces hospitals and research companies to make the best possible use of their resources...to operate efficiently. Canadian drugs are cheaper than those in the US because CANADIAN DOCTORS AND RESEARCHERS DIDN'T INVENT THEM...they're making or licensing cheaper copies of drugs made elsewhere including in the U.S. Or, as in Canada, the government puts a cap on the amount insurance will pay for drugs which forces drug companies to recoup costs and make some profit by shifting their R&D and marketing expenses to, oh, places like the US! Which drives up OUR health care costs. Copying other peoples' drugs and medical procedures while inventing few of your own sure sounds efficient, and so does "we'll pay this price for your drugs or you don't do business in Canada!" so points for you. And if you want an efficient health care system that is ten years behind your closest neighbor, hey that's a good way to maintain a status quo. So in Canada, your health care system makes complete sense. Not so much for us here in AFY - we typically want better stuff all the time, not the status quo, makes government-run health care unsuited for OUR SYSTEM.

Ignoring the fact that Canada makes pretty big investments in medical R+D of its own, basically commersurate with its status as a leading industrial country, the fact that Canadians live longer than Americans is a pretty good argument that being on the bleeding edge of medical advancement isn't really doing the American people much good is it? Nevermind that the revenue streams for innovation which go to paying medical technology firms is completely independant from the administrative overhead which goes to health insurance companies. Paying lots for paper pushing doesn't help medical research in the slightest, in fact it probably hurts because of the drain to financial resources it represents.

[Rogue 9]

The shift rightward began in the late 1960s (actually, on July 2, 1964)

What, the Civil Rights Act?

Yes.

In what way was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 right-wing?