Clinton's Forensic Reconstruction of History
Jason Fodeman has a fascinating piece on Clinton's reconstruction of history.
Money quote:
For twenty years, whenever Richard Nixon appeared in public, the media never missed an opportunity to state that this was “the disgraced former president.� Now, despite actually having been impeached, Mr. Clinton is portrayed prancing with the celebrity and cachet of a movie star. As the cameras flash and the film rolls, leading newsmen jockey for position to kiss his ring. “Disgraced,� “shamed,� and “discredited� are words never uttered.
How could it happen that one of the most momentous events of the twentieth century, the impeachment of an American president, is becoming little more than a footnote in history? That the leader of the most corrupt, scandal-plagued administration has shed his true image and morphed into a media superstar? Hush money was paid to convicted associates. He failed to meet with the CIA chief for two years as the terrorist threat incubated. There was sexual harassment of subordinates, fines, perjury, and disbarment. An anything-goes atmosphere was created that allowed unprecedented corporate corruption to fester. He even told our youth oral sex was not sex and led by example. To say, “The economy was good� is like justifying Saddam Hussein’s torture, rape, mutilation, and murder of his countrymen by rationalizing that he would occasionally feed hungry pigeons in the park.
There's so much more; read it all.
The key to it all, I think, speaks to so much of the reasoning of the left; I think there's an analogue here to "Berg's Law of Liberal Iraq Commentary:
No liberal commentator is capable of addressing more than one of the President's justifications for the War in Iraq at a time; to do so would introduce a context in which their argument can not survive
When it regards Bill Clinton, perhaps it's really:No liberal commentator is capable of addressing more than one side of each of the elements of Bill Clinton's "legacy" at a time; to do so would introduce a context in which their argument can not survive
Every one of his supposed positives is almost-inevitably accompanied by a crushing negative.
And I say this as a guy who is almost nostalgic for Clinton, from an economic policy perspective alone, when looking at the likes of John Kerry (or, at times, George Bush).
Posted by Mitch at
June 30, 2004 04:21 AM
The 90's were great economically, though can't name a single economic benefit Clinton can realistically take credit for. for a bit of perspective:
I was able to start a new job early in 1992 with truck equipment economy. this company was taking off because suddenly the economy needed lots of trucks to handle all the new commerce. In early '99 I left that company, days later they had a massive layoff (why? the economy was slowing down, ergo fewer trucks needed to handle less commerce!). in 2000, the company I went to the year before laid me off with 2/3rds of the company.
I landed at a defense company (which is pretty recession proof) seven weeks later.
I can't think of a single clinton initiative that help those companies, though I know a few that hurt
My own experience is the 90's expansion start in 92, and started to give out in 99.
Posted by: Rick at June 30, 2004 01:17 PM