Character issues aside, Bill Clinton was the best Reaganite president ever – not the most visionary, not the one with the most competent subordinates, but the most effective. No one, certainly not Reagan himself, did more to privatize and deregulate, and to undo government programs that perform worthwhile functions. ... Clinton’s heart was probably never into putting Reaganism into practice; he was – and is — an opportunist, not a true believer. But as a Democrat, he was able to neutralize the opposition and even to bring it on board. He could therefore accomplish what Reagan and the people around him could only dream of. ... The Clintons, along with other right-wing Democrats, effectively purged their party of its left wing. It is therefore difficult to distinguish Clintonite politics from Democratic politics generally. .. As Reaganism took shape, Bertram Gross wrote about what he called “friendly fascism.” By calling it “fascism,” his point was that Reaganism embraced a paramount fascist objective – suppressing the labor movement and then reconfiguring the relation between Big Business and the State in ways that secure the interests of both. By “friendly,” he meant that it did this without the blatant illiberalism and organized violence associated with the fascist movements of the inter-war period (and their successors). It helped that Ronald Reagan seemed warm and amiable, but this was not the main point. Obama carries on in the friendly fascist tradition. And building on the work of George Bush and Dick Cheney, he presides over a related turn in American politics. An apt name for it would be “friendly totalitarianism.” Bush and Cheney got it going, but Obama will be remembered for turning America into a 24/7 surveillance state, and for shredding privacy and due process rights. He will also be remembered for continuing old wars and initiating new ones. These things go together; perpetual war is indispensible in a totalitarian state. ... Opposition to Clintonism is not the same as antipathy towards the Clintons. The latter is rampant throughout the land, according to the former First Lady; “a vast right-wing conspiracy” has it in for them. To the extent that she is right, the question is: why? There is no remotely satisfactory political answer. On the right, Reagan is worshipped, and though Reagan’s connections with Reaganism may not be as direct as is commonly supposed, it is surely relevant that Clintonism is Reaganism in practice. A better question is why isn’t there more antipathy towards the Clintons in liberal quarters? They certainly deserve it. ... The hope of some Obama voters back then was that an Obama victory would de-Clintonize the Democratic Party. For anyone closely following the campaign, this was a pipe dream. Obama got mileage out of it anyway. ... By the time he called on Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State – a post for which she was manifestly unsuited, as would soon become abundantly clear – the shape of things to come was unmistakable. ... Whether or not the impulse to revive the Cold War is coming directly from her, it is surely coming from her protégés and retainers; and she is cheering them on. Who knows why she and the others want to embark on such a risky business. Could it be that they feel that the “war on terror,” or whatever its name in Obama-speak now is, isn’t delivering enough anymore for the military-national security state complex? ... It is remarkable how little they do understand. Can they really not realize how dangerous a Cold War with Russia – and China too – can be? How can they not know? ... This is what happens when the spirit of Reaganism takes hold of the ideological descendants of Cold War anti-Communists. For nearly four decades after the end of World War II, there were liberals who ... while as devoted to capitalism as any other sector of the political class, yet were less inclined than the others to advance the interests of capitalism’s principal beneficiaries. That sensibility began to wither away as the Reaganite turn took hold; soon, it all but disappeared. At the same time, social liberalism continued and even advanced as societal attitudes evolved. In reaction, social illiberalism hardened on the right. Before long, disagreements about values, not material interests, constituted the main dividing line in American politics. This is what Clintonism is about. It is Reaganized liberalism; Cold War anti-Communist liberalism, without its progressive economic dimension. Clintonites are still committed to tolerance and other non-economic liberal values, but on economic issues, there is no light between them and their Republican opponents. This describes Hillary Clinton to a tee. Dissect her public persona and it is all there: the social liberalism, but also the economic neoliberalism and, above all, the reflexive animosity towards Russia – and China – inherited from the Cold War past. No one could accuse Bill Clinton of being a “transformative” President in the sense that Obama thinks Ronald Reagan was. But he, along with his wife, did transform the Democratic Party – to such an extent that it may now be beyond redemption. ... Clintonism is worse than just Reaganism for Democrats. It is Reaganite malware, directed at Democrats. Once it enters the system, it spreads like a virus; and all it does is corrupt. As with any other virus, the best way to deal with it is to keep away from it. ... -ANDREW LEVINE, Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, July 25, 2014
Posted on: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:40:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015