http://maritimes.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/5947.php
is to reveal an important aspect of the Democratic Party, its historic role as a counterinsurgency operation whose aim is to co-opt and sidetrack political activists, keep them from creating an independent political movement, and divert their energy into legitimating and reinforcing the political system which maintains the status-quo.
It would be hard to imagine a Republican who could accomplish as much for capital as did Clinton in his two terms. He pushed through NAFTA, GATT, the WTO and other globalization measures. His administration enacted the ‘96 Telecommunications Act which was the largest give-away of public domain to private interests in U.S. history. matched with a giveaway in the realm of the Internet. It went all-out to promote the bio-tech industry. The '96 Anti Terrorism Act, which followed the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in April ‘95 (about which serious questions remain) paved the way wholesale for today's police state measures, and words were backed by action in the streets of Seattle in December ‘99 as U.S. military units were used in domestic policing operations, part of a far-reaching planning process which preceded today's developments re Homeland Security/Northern Command.
Welfare "reform" went further than any other bill to undermine what remained of the social welfare measures of the New Deal which provided a safety net for living standards.The Iraqi trade embargo and pretty regular air attacks on that impoverished country led to over one million deaths and massive misery. The attack on Yugoslavia in ‘99 in complete violation of international law opened the way for moves being undertaken by Bush Junior today, and was coupled with a reorientation of NATO towards being openly an intervention force whose task is the enforcement of corporate global interests anywhere in the world. Yet it would be a complete mistake to paint Clinton as a "traitor" to the ideals of the Democratic Party. These "ideals" have never amounted to more than salad-dressing on top of a corporate elite dinner whose essence was the securing of enough legitimacy at home to secure continued capital accumulation everywhere, ultimately by any means necessary. There was much more continuity with the Democratic past than a break with it, as i've tried to show so far.
>From: andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Does the wolf in sheep's clothing provide "a
>betterdiscursive and organzing environment for more radical critiquesof The
>System"
>Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:03:07 -0800 (PST)
>
>I have been trying to avoid responding to Bartlett,
>but does he really believe that Clinton was more
>effective in implementing a right wing agenda than
>Bush has been? I know Clinton was Reaganism Lite; I
>published several aticles on his political crimes in
>the 1990s. But Bush II had really gone over the top.
>At least it seems that way to a lot of us here who are
>normally rock solid for independent politics. Maybe
>Doug and I and many others here have totally lost it.
>But I don't thionk Clinton was a more effective or
>dangerous right winger than W. Sorry.
_________________________________________________________________ Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/