The difference between Nixon's 70s and Clinton's 90s was the character of the Congress, where in the 70s there were more Democrats and the GOP was less powerful.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Farmelant" <farmelantj at juno.com>
>But it was under Nixon, that the EPA was established,
>and most of the major Federal environmental legislation was passed and
>enacted into law.
And this was because of mass mobilization in the wake of Earth Day 1970 and the power of Ed Muskie chairing the Interior Committee -- read Chris Matthews original HARDBALL on Muskie's powerful use of his position to drive through that progressive legislation. Yes, Nixon signed it, but to give credit to Nixon for such legislation is ridiculous.
>It was Nixon who initiated affirmative action by executive order.
Yes, in a time when affirmative action was seen as a conservative alternative to real economic equality and a way to build a coservative black business class loyal to the GOP. He also launched a racist war on crime and appealed quite directly to the coded racist "silent majority."
>Nixon's Justice Department successfully pursued the desegregation of
schools in the South.
And participated in blocking it and attacking busing in the North, where the main battle on integration was occuring on his watch.
>It was Nixon who proposed a guaranteed annual income,
>as a way of reforming welfare (as opposed to Clinton's
>later abolishing AFDC).
Again, Nixon's proposal was seen as a way to undercut alternatives and, as later interviewers showed, was never proposed seriously. This is the most valid slam comparatively to Clinton, but again Clinton's position on welfare was (sadly) far more progressive than Congress which twice passed far worse welfare proposals, which Clinton vetoed twice.
>Nixon also proposed a national health insurance program that was far more
>progressive than what Clinton later proposed.
In what way? Clinton's proposal was not ideal but it was a proposal for universal health care that was seriously proposed, while Nixon's proposal were largely tactical with large gaps.
>Nevertheless, the fact still remains that Nixon was a more progressive
president than
>any of his successors.
Why give a person credit for things they opposed, just because they lacked the power to stop them?
All this discussion is a way to resolutely ignore the composition of the branch of government that actually passed the legislation in question (as opposed to proposing far less progressive alternatives as Nixon did). In the 70s, Democrats dominated the Congressional branch and were able to pass significantly progressive legislation. By the early 90s, they barely had a majority (much less the supermajorities needed to overcome GOP filibusters in the Senate) and lost even that bare majority in 1994.
The focus on the Presidential level is a nice way for third party fundamentalists to studiously ignore the main difference in the decades, the loss of Democratic control of Congress.
-- Nathan Newman