> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Max writes: >You could also interpret [right-wing] scandal-mongering
> [against Clinton] as a straight-forward strategy to delegitimize government
> and feed the attitude that nothing constructive can come from government.
> This attitude is the most powerful brake on social reform, in my view. I
> agree that we could interpret this strategy as a second-best from the
> standpoint of conservatives, who might prefer to institute all manner of
> conservative reforms. It is also true that in the U.S. the conservative
> agenda appears exhausted if you set aside very ambitious but politically
> impractical projects like destroying social security or replacing the income
> tax with a flat tax or sales tax.<
>
> Since there is more than one right wing, the
> left-wing/right-wing/middle-of-the-bird metaphor breaks down. Max refers
> above to the "anti-statist" or "libertarian" or "laissez-faire" right wing,
> what might be called economic conservativism. But there is also the (very
> statist) social-conservative or traditionalist right wing. These folks
> attack Clinton because of his pro-choice (on abortion) attitude and his
> generally social-liberal attitudes. (They want to impose state control on
> our bedrooms and bodies; no libertarians they.) Abortion is almost the only
It's not obvious that the theocrats want to
build up the Federal government for such
purposes, though they do not shrink from offering
Federal legislation reflecting their concerns.
They are very active at the state and local
levels.
There is also some schizophrenia in the sense
that they are so anxious to attack the Feds that
they discount the difficulties of reviving the
state for their own purposes if that becomes
possible for them.
> issue where Clinton shows any kind of backbone -- and that may be an
Backbone hell. The WH is constantly polling, so
if they take a position you can bet money they
believe it has solid majority support.
Exceptions are positions they take which serve
basic aims of big capital (e.g., NAFTA, Fast
Track). Another class of exceptions are issues
where there are fund-raising opportunities (e.g.,
gays, Hollywood).
> opportunist effort to maintain his core constitutency. The other
> social-liberal issues, like his having smoked marijuana and his relatively
> feminist or pro-gay stance on some issues (from the perspective of this
> right wing), cling to the abortion issue and stick in the craw of people
> like televangelist Jerry Falwell. (note the word "relatively.")
>
> As for "delegitimizing government," Mr. & Ms. Clinton have done a good job
> here, as with their effort to create a humonguous, overly-complicated, and
> bureaucratic health insurance system in their first years. Clinton has also
> embrace the less-gov-is-better line on many occasions.
Obviously the health care thing was inadvertent.
Less govt doesn't mean govt is bad, only that it
is oversized.
Actually in their own demented way, the
Administration's policies have aimed to
rehabilitate government. On the micro level
there is Gore's relatively benign Reinventing
Govt stuff. On the macro level, I would argue
that appearing to fix the deficit has done a lot
to rehabilitate govt.
> "Social reform" also has more than one dimension (FDR economic liberalism,
> ACLU civil libertarianism, "new movements" feminism or ethnic liberation,
> sexual liberalism, etc.) I hope Max doesn't mean this phrase as a support
> for paternalistic statism. Do we want more government? more Pentagon
> spending? do we really want the central organization of societal repression
> to be legitimized?
This is a double-edged sword. Effective reforms
imply a more well-regarded and therefore stronger
state, and conversely an unmitigated rejection of
the state makes constructive reform and practical
politics impossible. we've had this argument
before.
> We probably need a better word than "reform," too, since the recent US
> "welfare reform." How about talking about the popular struggle for economic
> justice? Fuzzy, yes, but less so than "reform."
Reforms are changes which obviously can be good
or bad. I agree that bad reforms ought to be
described as such, lest their novelty obscure
their malign nature.
> Michael E. forwards the following: >Following up the Lewinsky case and
> Hillary Clinton's allegations of a "conspiracy," yesterday's _New York
> Times_ published on p. 22 an article showing how campus right-wing groups
> and their funders are involved in coordinating the attack. The article is
> written by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Tim Weiner and former _Wall
> Street Journal_ reporter Jill Abramson.<
>
> I have no doubt that there are "right-wing" conspiracies against the
> Clintons. But Ms. Clinton sinks her own boat by invoking such conspiracies,
> or rather by using that word. The fact is that there is more than one right
I agree she went a little overboard, since
there is no single operation against them, but
not by too much. The onslaught against the
Clintons and their associates has been
unprecedented in history of U.S. presidential
politics, from what I can gather. The GOP was on
their case from Day One. Sore losers.
> wing. These groups compete with each other. The libertarians and the
> traditionalists don't agree on a lot of things (like legalizing drugs),
> though people like William Buckley try to unite them. In addition there are
> personal animosities and sectarian feelings, just as on the left (or rather
> in the lefts). Things political happen when the various competing forces
> line up behind a single cause. Sometimes, it's even the right and the left
> that unite as with issue of support for the IMF. Let's drop conspiracy
> theories, leaving them for the militias to embrace. (The left's conspiracy
> theories, like those pushed by the Christic institute have been a dead end.)
I don't disagree, though I'd go further and
suggest it almost doesn't matter if there are
conspiracies if a) they are impossible to prove
convincingly, and b) the public is disinclined to
believe in them. It only matters for the sake of
knowing who the bad guys if it ever becomes
possible to bring them to account.
MBS
==================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200
202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
Opinions here do not necessarily represent the
views of anyone associated with the Economic
Policy Institute.
===================================================
