http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Clinton.html
Double Standards Bill Clinton and the “Anybody But Bush” Movement
If the democrats take power this November they will probably continue the same policies as Bush. We know this because Clinton did basically the same thing when he was in office. To think otherwise is to ignore history and the democrat's records. The "Anybody but Bush" (ABB) movement is founded on a basically irrational hatred of Bush that completely ignores the record of the democrats the last time they were in power. The ABB movement practices a double standard: when republicans do something it’s wrong but when democrats do the same thing it’s okay (or didn’t happen at all). In party politics it is always the other party’s fault, never the system’s fault. If a democrat were in office and implemented the same policies Bush has most of the ABBers would support him. We know this because Clinton implemented many of the same policies ABBers criticize Bush for yet they didn’t develop the same kind of hatred towards Clinton they have towards Bush. Most outright supported Clinton and the minority who didn’t support him did not develop the kind of irrational hatred towards Clinton they have towards Bush.
There are major continuities between Clinton’s policies and Bush’s policies, even if their rhetoric is different. These continuities also illustrate the flaw in thinking that putting a democrat back in office will be a big change for the better. The last time a democrat was in office he did pretty much the same thing the current occupant is doing, so given that the current nominee doesn't disavow Clinton there’s no reason to think the next democrat in the White House will be much different.
Bush’s environmental record isn’t very good, but neither was Clinton’s. During the 1992 election campaign Clinton and Gore promised to shut down the East Liverpool incinerator, which spews toxic chemicals into the air a quarter of a mile away from an elementary school, but once elected they refused to do so. The Clinton administration’s enforcement of the endangered species act was lax and he weakened it through several means, including the “no surprises” and “safe harbors” policies. Funding of mass transit continued to decline under his administration.
(snip)
Liberals often criticize Bush over his tax cuts for the rich and generally waging a class war in favor of the rich, but Clinton did the same thing. Clinton reduced the capital gains tax rate in 1997. This disproportionately benefits the rich, since a large percentage of their income comes from capital gains but most Americans make little or nothing from capital gains. Corporate welfare (subsidies and tax loopholes for the rich & big business) greatly increased under Clinton's administration, in his second term alone corporate welfare rose by over 30%. Clinton also attacked the poor by, among other things, abolishing the Aid to Families with Dependant Children program ("welfare reform"). The increase in poverty under Bush is, in part, due to this class war against the poor by Clinton, which undermined the social safety net. After winning election in 1992 Clinton made Lawrence Summers an official in his administration and later appointed Summers his last Treasury Secretary in 1999. Before Clinton was elected, in 1991, Summers, then chief economist for the World Bank, issued a memo reading:
"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? ... I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. ... I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted ... The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization."
(snip)
The Bush-haters position is not founded on the policies Bush has implemented, which they complain about. If it were they would be Clinton haters, too. Most ABBers’ position is based primarily on a blind irrational hatred of the other party and, partly, also a reaction to the different media images of Clinton & Bush. When Clinton ran for office he claimed to advocate a mildly liberal reformist platform, once in office he abandoned it and went with a conservative program. Today, most leaders of the Democratic Party don’t even pretend to support that mildly populist reformism Clinton espoused in 1992. To think that the next democratic administration will be any different is asinine. Clinton’s administration gives us an example of what we can expect if the democrats take power this November: more of the same.