Yes, I suspect Clinton is what you call a Nation liberal, which puts him far to the left of the major political spectrum in terms of his perspective, but to win he goes to the left.
I cannot think of anybody in politics today who follows principles in a way that I can respect, the Clintons' hypocrisy and willingness to sacrifice ideals makes them especially reprehensible. Politically speaking I will forever be grateful to Monica and Linda for giving us the few enjoyable moments that we've had during Clintons two terms in office.
John Halle wrote:
> > >I do not deny that the Clintons are creeps, but I suspect that the
> > >critics are correct that they are left wing Democrats. However, rather
> > >than stand for any of the principals that they might believe in, they
> > >follow the gods of expediency.
>
> 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
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901