Expediency in what sense, is the $64 question. Nation type liberals, Gloria Steinem et. al., would define Clinton's pursuit of expediency in a positive sense, as attempting to accomplish minimally decent goals to the greatest extent possible given the realities of the system. Compromising with the right on welfare reform, the defense budget, the environment etc., i.e. expediency in this sense, is the price of admission to the world of realpolitik. If you don't have to play the game, its easy to snicker from the balcony.
Expediency can also be understood as selling your principles for personal gain. Aside from Hillary's success on the commodities market, its not obvious that the Clintons are crassly opportunistic. (They barely had enough to put a down payment for their new home in Chappaqua.) In fact, it could be argued that they are deeply principled-the principle what's good for corporations is good for the US of A.
>
> What I think is missing in the understanding of Clinton and Blair is that
> the Third Way is so consciously, openly, and conscientiously opportunistic
> that it is rather succesful in riding the balance of forces and making them
> to a small degree accessible to more democratic pressure.
>
On the other hand, the third way functions by co-opting the institutionalized opposition-giving a few leading players "access", a la Robert Reich, Jesse Jackson, the Edelmans, etc. hence insuring their loyalty, and their ability to defuse serious opposition when push comes to shove. It is doubtful, for example, that Bush could have succeeded in pushing through welfare reform, the salvage rider, star wars, NAFTA, the crime bill, anti-terrorism legislation, the continuing "war on drugs" given that mainstream labor, environmental and civil rights organizations would have been allied against him.
John