Nathan Newman wrote:
>It's not unimportant, but I think too many on the left are more committed
>to the right words than to the right results.
-Ok. Domestic policy achievements (leaving aside the imperial escapades): -Kennedy-Johnson: civil rights legislation, four minimum wage -increases, Medicare/Medicaid, social security expansion
-Clinton: two minimum wage increases, DOMA, welfare reform, unpaid -leave, social security contraction
What you are comparing is a Democratic-controlled Congress to a Republican one for most of Clinton's term.
But even though- let's remember that Kennedy passed the first "supply side" tax cuts, then Johnson jacked up taxes on almost everyone to pay for the Vietnam War, compared to Clinton's very progressive tax increases.
And with Clinton, let's add Motor Voter, EITC (spending more money each year than AFDC ever did), prohibiting discrimination against gays in all government employment outside the military, placing 3 million acres of federal land off-limits to development by declaring them "national monuments" and passing the "roadless forest" rules, strong pro-choice policies including the Freedom of Access to Abortion Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), and quite amazing executive orders (overturned by courts or Congress) banning labor law breakers from getting federal contracts and tough ergonomics rules.
And let's not forget-- without Clinton's vetoes starting in 1995, Medicaid, Food Stamps and a range of labor and civil rights laws would have been completely repealed. So yes, it was the same party that protected most of the policies that were passed in the 1960s-- emphasizing the continuity.
That's both good and bad, since all of these policies aren't adequate to a real progressive public policy. But I think nostalgia for a lost Edin of progressive Democrats is misplaced. I'll stack Charlie Rangel (ranking Dem on the Ways & Means), John Conyers (ranking Dem on Judiciary Committee), and Nancy Pelosi (Speaker) up against any of their counterparts of the past.
Nathan Newman