Purge Joe Lieberman, how about Bill Clinton
A lot of people on the left have said that while Lieberman may have a fairly liberal voting record on most issues, the reason for his dismissal and vilification is that he provides aid and comfort to the enemy by providing cover to the Republicans. For the most part, they are talking about the Iraq war. There was some idiocy about how he was supposedly one of the few democrats who slammed Bill Clinton about Monica, but this was exposed as a lie.
If democrats were interested in purging those among their ranks who have provided more cover to republican talking points and policies, they should start with the one they call the Big Dog, President Clinton. Start with a policy that some democrats call outright discrimination, bigotry, and even un-american. I strongly disagree with a ban on gay marriage, however President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act that recognizes marriage at the federal level as between only a man and a woman. So now when liberals try to claim that those opposed to gay marriage are bigots, these opponents can ask in return "did you vote for a bigot in 1992 or 1996?"
Clinton's opposition to gay marriage is minor in comparison to his overall undercutting of what many democrats feel separates them from republicans, their faith in the government to help those in need. After a miserable attempt to greatly expand the government by having a big government solution to the health care problem, democrats lost control of the house and senate in 1994. To kick off his reelection campaign, Pres. Clinton declared in his 1996 State of the Union that: "The era of big government is over." So in declaring that the New Deal and the Great Society were products of a bygone era, Pres. Clinton dealt a strong blow at what many liberals consider to be the among their defining issues and defining traits. That the government should be heavily involved in providing solutions through larger government programs, ranging from universal, single payer health care, national daycare, a larger safety net, and wide ranging government intervention in business regulation.
Pres. Clinton's actions that followed reinforced republican themes, when he signed Welfare Reform later in 1996. This act helped to validated many republican talking points about lazy welfare recipients, but most importantly, it sent the message that the top democrat in the country agreed with republicans who claimed that big government is not the solution, but is the problem when it comes to fighting poverty and bringing about social justice. This hit at the essence of what it means to be a democrat more than a position on the Iraq war does.
There are other issues that Pres. Clinton provided enormous cover for republicans, that democrats seem to forgive. He cut capital gains taxes, lowering them from 28 % to 20%, a move that enriched the wealthy, investor class and allowed republicans to say that this cut helped the economy. He and Al Gore actively pushed through NAFTA and favorable trading status for China, which many democrats blame today for the loss of American jobs and suppression of wages. He also signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which many progressives blame for the consolidation and spread of conservative media. Most all of this happened before the 1996 election, yet there was no mass defection of liberals from the party in 1996, no primary challenge to Pres. Clinton, not even a Ralph Nader to apply pressure from the left.
I understand the Pres. Clinton isn't running for anything and Sen. Lieberman is, yet that doesn't mean that liberals still have to kiss Pres. Clinton's ass like many do. When Clinton campaigned for Lieberman, many left wing bloggers went out of their way to rationalize Clinton's appearance as him just helping an old friend or that Clinton had so much more class and stature than Lieberman, that it made Lieberman look small in comparison. Clinton is too popular to purge, so he has to stay.
If democrats were interested in purging those among their ranks who have provided more cover to republican talking points and policies, they should start with the one they call the Big Dog, President Clinton. Start with a policy that some democrats call outright discrimination, bigotry, and even un-american. I strongly disagree with a ban on gay marriage, however President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act that recognizes marriage at the federal level as between only a man and a woman. So now when liberals try to claim that those opposed to gay marriage are bigots, these opponents can ask in return "did you vote for a bigot in 1992 or 1996?"
Clinton's opposition to gay marriage is minor in comparison to his overall undercutting of what many democrats feel separates them from republicans, their faith in the government to help those in need. After a miserable attempt to greatly expand the government by having a big government solution to the health care problem, democrats lost control of the house and senate in 1994. To kick off his reelection campaign, Pres. Clinton declared in his 1996 State of the Union that: "The era of big government is over." So in declaring that the New Deal and the Great Society were products of a bygone era, Pres. Clinton dealt a strong blow at what many liberals consider to be the among their defining issues and defining traits. That the government should be heavily involved in providing solutions through larger government programs, ranging from universal, single payer health care, national daycare, a larger safety net, and wide ranging government intervention in business regulation.
Pres. Clinton's actions that followed reinforced republican themes, when he signed Welfare Reform later in 1996. This act helped to validated many republican talking points about lazy welfare recipients, but most importantly, it sent the message that the top democrat in the country agreed with republicans who claimed that big government is not the solution, but is the problem when it comes to fighting poverty and bringing about social justice. This hit at the essence of what it means to be a democrat more than a position on the Iraq war does.
There are other issues that Pres. Clinton provided enormous cover for republicans, that democrats seem to forgive. He cut capital gains taxes, lowering them from 28 % to 20%, a move that enriched the wealthy, investor class and allowed republicans to say that this cut helped the economy. He and Al Gore actively pushed through NAFTA and favorable trading status for China, which many democrats blame today for the loss of American jobs and suppression of wages. He also signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which many progressives blame for the consolidation and spread of conservative media. Most all of this happened before the 1996 election, yet there was no mass defection of liberals from the party in 1996, no primary challenge to Pres. Clinton, not even a Ralph Nader to apply pressure from the left.
I understand the Pres. Clinton isn't running for anything and Sen. Lieberman is, yet that doesn't mean that liberals still have to kiss Pres. Clinton's ass like many do. When Clinton campaigned for Lieberman, many left wing bloggers went out of their way to rationalize Clinton's appearance as him just helping an old friend or that Clinton had so much more class and stature than Lieberman, that it made Lieberman look small in comparison. Clinton is too popular to purge, so he has to stay.
posted by Doug at 5:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home