COMMENTS: 57
The Hypocrisy of Bill Clinton's New Book 'Giving'
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
His book is the political equivalent of Marley & Me . It is filled with a lot of vapid, feel-good stories about ordinary and wealthy Americans setting out to make the world a better place.
It smacks of the philanthropy-as-publicity that characterized the largesse of the robber barons—the Mellons and the Rockefellers—and has become a pastime for our own oligarchic elite. Clinton’s call for charity is the equivalent of well-scrubbed prep school students spending a day in a soup kitchen, doling out food to the people whose jobs were outsourced by their mommies and daddies. It does little to alleviate suffering. But it is a balm to the conscience of the oligarchic class that profits handsomely from the impoverishment of the working class, globalization and our anti-democratic corporate state. The rich love to dine out on their own goodness.
The misery sweeping across the American landscape may have begun with Ronald Reagan, but it was accelerated and codified by Bill Clinton. He sold out the poor and the working class. And Clinton did it deliberately to feed the pathological hunger he and his wife have for political power. It was the Clintons who led the Democratic Party to the corporate watering trough.
The Clintons argued that the party had to ditch labor unions, no longer a source of votes or power, as a political ally. Workers would vote Democratic anyway. They had no choice. It was better, the Clintons argued, to take corporate money and use government to service the needs of the corporations. By the 1990s, the Democratic Party, under Clinton’s leadership, had virtual fund-raising parity with the Republicans. In political terms, it was a success. In moral terms, it was a betrayal.
The North American Free Trade Agreement was sold to the country by the Clinton White House as an opportunity to raise the incomes and prosperity of the citizens of the United States, Canada and Mexico. Goods would be cheaper. Workers would be wealthier. Everyone would be happier. I am not sure how these contradictory things were supposed to happen, but in a sound-bite society, reality no longer matters. NAFTA would also, we were told, staunch Mexican immigration into the United States.
"There will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home,” President Clinton said in the spring of 1993 as he was lobbying for the bill.
But NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, had the curious effect of reversing every one of Clinton’s rosy predictions. Once the Mexican government lifted price supports on corn and beans for Mexican farmers, they had to compete against the huge agribusinesses in the United States. The Mexican farmers were swiftly bankrupted. At least 2 million Mexican farmers were driven off their land from 1993 through 2002. And guess where many of them went? This desperate flight of Mexicans into the United States is being exacerbated by large-scale factory closures along the border as manufacturers leave Mexico for the cut-rate embrace of China’s totalitarian capitalism.
Clinton’s welfare reform bill, which was signed on Aug. 22, 1996, obliterated the nation’s social safety net. It threw 6 million people, many of them single parents, off of the welfare rolls within three years. It dumped them onto the streets without child care, rent subsidies and continued Medicaid coverage. Families were plunged into crisis, struggling to survive on multiple jobs that paid $6 or $7 an hour, or less than $15,000 a year.
But these were the lucky ones. In some states, half of those dropped from the welfare rolls could not find work. Clinton slashed Medicare by $115 billion over a five-year period and cut $25 billion in Medicaid funding. The booming and overcrowded prison system handled the influx of the poor, as well as our abandoned mentally ill.
The growing desperation provided a pool of broken people willing to work for low wages and without unions or benefits. And while Clinton was busy selling out the poor, he lowered the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, a reduction that permitted the wealthiest 1 percent of the population to derive 80 percent of the tax savings. Clinton, like George W. Bush, also provided lavish government funding for his corporate backers, including in 1998 a $200-billion highway and transportation package for the big construction companies and a $17-billion increase in the military budget.
This was the largest increase in military spending since the end of the Cold War. Corporations, flush with government aid, saw their taxes dwindle. Amway, for example, had its taxes cut during the Clinton years by an estimated $280 million. The Clinton and Bush administrations, through tax breaks and corporate bailouts, have squandered billions of our tax dollars on corporate welfare.
The appreciative oligarchs and corporate class have made Bill rich. He is fond of boasting in public about how wealthy he has become. Hillary raised $26 million in the first quarter of the year, almost three times as much as any politician previously raised at that point in a presidential election.
We face the prospect of having two families govern the country for 16 years. The system is rigged. Our democracy is a consumer fraud. The government has given up any pretence of serving the interests of citizens. The corporations rule. And for all Clinton’s charm and talent for self-promotion, he is largely to blame.
Half a century ago, corporations paid 45 percent to 50 percent of the income tax. Today they pay 6 or 7 percent. This is why our infrastructure is crumbling, there is no universal health care, our public education is in crisis, regulatory agencies are impotent and our poor and working class are desperate.
It is no longer possible to argue between the lesser of two evils. The corporate state, which is carrying out a coup d’etat in slow motion and has already shredded most of our constitutional rights, is an unmitigated evil. We do not need charity. We need justice. And all of Bill Clinton’s heart-warming stories about giving are not going to save us from the corporations who sucked out his soul and seek to imprison the rest of us.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: paul_revere on Sep 18, 2007 2:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always told others that the Clinton years were peaceful years. There was not a lot of division in the USA among the general population. Most of the static came from the rabid persecution by a small group of extremist right-wing nutjobs and the traitorous GOP members of Congress, which most of us ignored anyway (We really should have paid more attention). Lots of people made money and became complacent about our government and world affairs.
Despite the calm times, Clinton did some awful things, such as what the brilliant Chris Hedges has illustrated in this piece. Clinton also is responsible for the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This act was supposed to foster competition in the communications industry. Instead, it led to media consolidation and the slow death of independent news stations and other media. The number of major media companies went from around 80 in 1986, to 6 in 2005. Most newspapers, talk radio stations and television stations are merely propaganda outlets for the right-wing and the White House.
It wasn't until after the 2000 Selection that I woke up and began to realize what has really happened since Reagan (who is likely rotting in hell) and that we are all totally screwed unless we try to start a revolution internally. Changing the character (and the characters) in the Democratic Party seems to me to be the only hope, but it's going to take the right kind of leaders, those who will not cater to the corporations. That's why I fight. If there comes a day when there is no hope of fielding good leaders or making the Democratic Party better for the People, then it will be time to leave or start a real revolution. Not a good set of options to choose from, I must say.
So, let's bury Hillary and find someone better to support.
Thanks, Chris Hedges, for your wonderful article (and I bought and read your last book, too!)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hillary Smillary
Posted by: Spyder
» Smil-
Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: That's why ...
Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: That's why ...
Posted by: 1gma
» RE: That's why ...
Posted by: notinKansas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Sep 18, 2007 4:01 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My point is that all the talk of "betrayal" by the Dems is counter-productive. The party moves when the grassroots gives it no choice. There is no conscience there, and there never has been, nothing is being betrayed, it is what it is. If you want change, stop waiting for Daddy or Mommy in the guise of Dean, or Obama, or Kucinich, or whoever. Make it happen in your communities, and at the state level. Build bridges with people whose needs you can see right in front of you. Washington politics has never worked for any length of time for progressives, any successes there have always been the result of movement building at the local and state level. Capitalism needs predictability and social order to flourish... don't let them have it, and you can win concessions. Wait for the "right" people to lead the party, and you'll be waiting forever.
Thanks
Peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Activism may prove insufficient
Posted by: LMNOP
» Agreed
Posted by: daw13
» RE: Agreed
Posted by: gazooks
» RE: correct observations? A view from abroad.
Posted by: pierrot
» RE: correct observations, false conclusion
Posted by: raywigton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nc green on Sep 18, 2007 4:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, the Democrats are just there to give the elites somewhere to go when we the people won't put up with their robber baron crap anymore, but even in that capacity they weren't always the toadies of big money. I think of Carter and JFK. There was no revolution pending during either of those presidencies, yet they behaved at least marginally like progressives.
Clinton never even crossed the left side of the centrist divider.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Finally ...
Posted by: Leman
» LBJ is the the only progressive President in recent history.
Posted by: CatDad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urstrly on Sep 18, 2007 4:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: On the Money
Posted by: ray burchard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Sep 18, 2007 5:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And where was Billo while this countries constitution was and still is being ravaged by the Shrub?
In general, this war and all its folly could not have happened without the compliance of the Democraps to this day.
One more term of a Clinton or one of the Repukes running this country should allow the fork to be put in for good as far as the working man is concerned.
Oh, where, oh where is a true progressive leader that is not still shrouded in the regressiveness of iron age religious superstition?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thanks for helping to confirm...
Posted by: dover23
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 18, 2007 5:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, I would guess that Clinton was confused about or trying to strike a balance with his role as president between the forces of wealth and power and workers' wages and rights. (That's being kind.) Because economics are more difficult to predict than the weather; there is no Doppler radar or map to forecast the effects of economic changes, and also, the starting economic premise, in this case "free market economics," is generally flawed.
Case in point: "let the market decide!" Well, what has eleven years of free, open trade taught us? The flow of capital goes disproportionately to the rich corporations. The rich corporations need energy (oil) to fuel their insatiable thirst for profits, so the neo-con president starts an illegal war in an oil rich country to temporarily ensure the oil faucet is wide open. Meanwhile, that same president opens the doors for wars in two other oil rich countries (Iran and Venezuela): just good planning for the future: ) China is an industrial powerhouse with its cheap and plentiful labor and lax environmental standards.
Meanwhile, workers wages and rights around the world erode to 19th century standards and practices making sweat shop labor the norm. An environmental crisis looms on the horizon, and the newest crop of Repubs and Dems offer no real solution (with one or two unelectable? exceptions). This is the new era of world trade!
Let's call it what it is: world trade means empire building, and any candidate who supports free trade agreements and refuses to create a single payer universal healthcare program is part of the problem not the solution.
We progressives can fight to change it now, or wait out the slower but inevitable destruction of american society that is sure to follow by voting for the likes of Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and any Republican, including Ron Paul. Kucinich, though, is the only candidate who has the platform and the voting record for standing for the people. We can get off our computers and go door to door for Kucinich or we can sit at our desks and bitch about it to each other.
peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Which came first: the corp egg or Dem Chicken?
Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: Which came first: the corp egg or Dem Chicken?
Posted by: peacelf
» NAFTA = free trade? not according to your hero Chomsky
Posted by: dover23
» you're clearly confused!
Posted by: Iconoclast421
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Sep 18, 2007 6:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a student of the of history, I have done a lot of reading about the French Revolution lately. Too often, history books and high school students are taught that the French Revolution is like something that just sort of "happened", like a hurricane or earthquake. But before the Revolution occurred, there were forces and attitudes that led up to it. One of them was a faux and paternalistic "charity" by the nobility towards the murmuring masses. Check out how Marie Antoinette built a gilded marble farm where she could play at being a peasant.
Clintons' book mirrors perfectly the attitude of the ruling classes immediately before the revolution broke.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE:USA more likely to become a full-blooded Police State than..
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Bankrupt of ideas--French Revolution redux
Posted by: NumberSix
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocketman on Sep 18, 2007 6:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“”$200-billion highway and transportation package for the big construction companies”” – we have of late been rightly bashing Bush for not keeping up with infrastructure spending.. we can allocate money for Blackwater and Halliburton but not for potholes!)
We can’t blame Clinton for doing what we criticize Bush for NOT doing..
While it’s no doubt that Clinton plays to the same audience as the republicans, the rest of the democratic candidates do the same to some degree and play to the Hollywood scene, a group of do nothings who might throw a few dollars to “needy causes” but in reality live the excessive lifestyle that seems to go against democratic values!
Anyone who can leave office with one of the highest approval ratings of any president after enduring an impeachment had to do some things right.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: a true "Republicrat"
Posted by: LMNOP
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lamar on Sep 18, 2007 6:52 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You also get on his case because he didn't promote the progressive pet projects. But don't you remember Hillarycare? The attempt at universal healthcare was shot down by the public, much the same way the public shot down Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security accounts. Then the message of 1994 was clear: big-government liberal programs were no longer on the table. They were getting slashed, in fact. Blame Clinton for Welfare reform, but I think a three year grace period to go back to work is reasonable. Perpetual welfare was certainly not an option.
Perhaps authors like Hedges are blaming Clinton for our own failures. Afterall, we are the ones who shop at these giant corporations and give them the money to lobby government and buy politicians. We've failed (and I'm with you on the anti-corporate rant, so I say "we") to stem the tide of corporate expansion. The poor eat at McDonald's and shop at Wal-Mart. Is this Clinton's fault? The middle class sees its entrepreneurial spirit turn into middle management at a super store, yet the middle class continues to shop at the corporate stores. The wealthy develop (lose?) their own identities through upscale brands and wasteful cars, which is all still corporate America.
Blame whomever you want, but we are doing this to ourselves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hedges still yearning for the Gingrich "Contract with America" days? Or just another Clinton hater?
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Misdirected rage? And blaming Clinton for 17 bio $ more for the military ...
Posted by: pierrot
» RE: Misdirected money on roads - not maintenance, but new sprawlways
Posted by: permatopia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mrtshw on Sep 18, 2007 8:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arkansas never benefitted from the Clintons' contributions...until Bill's rich friends and thousands of brain dead contributors of modest means enabled him to build a monument to his ego fittingly shaped in the form of a mobile home and called The Clinton Presidential Library which overlooks the Arkansas River in my homestate.... and which also overlooks the profound ethical shortcomings of the Clintons.
Chris Hedges' accurate depiction of the Clintons' amoral lack of charity pales when compared to his enabling the sale of blood drawn from inmates in the Arkansas Cummins Prison during most of his administration; notwithstanding his full knowledge most of this blood was HIV and hepatitis contaminated. Briefly stated, Bill Clinton, while governor, knowingly authorized and protected "Friends of Bill" in an appalling scheme to harvest and sell contaminated blood and plasma from Cummins prison farm near Grady, Arkansas.
The prisoners were bled nearly daily and paid $7 per unit, while the units brought $70 per unit to the " Friends of Bill ".
The scheme continued throughout his governorship in defiance of sound medical practice, numerous warnings and flagrant violations of FDA regulations. Tainted blood from Cummins infected literally millions of people with HIV (the AIDS virus) and potentially lethal Hepatitis C (20%-25% fatality rate) all over the world -- Canada, Japan, England, Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and not least, the United States. Clinton and his partners netted millions from it annually. I bet no one is surprised Bill Clinton now devotes much of his "charity" energy to alleviating the devastation of aids in Africa...probably the only continent his tainted prison blood has not infected!
Numerous other unreported and/or underreported scandals during the Arkansas Clinton years still dot our landscape here in our state....along with Clinton's multimillion dollar eyesore.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SackofWoe0 on Sep 18, 2007 8:26 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: GET OVER IT!
Posted by: Clockwise Cat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: shangrilalad on Sep 18, 2007 9:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever conservatives have the power to do whatever they want, they do whatever they want, laws and constitution be damned.
If Americans haven’t learned that lesson again, like they did after the Great Depression, then we can expect another depression, and maybe a whole lot worse this time. Unfettered Capitalism is a compulsive gambler betting other people’s money.
.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mgloraine on Sep 18, 2007 10:07 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should certainly review what came to pass during the Clinton Administration, identify the "bum steers" and problems which ensued as a result, and make plans for the future which correct for errors of the past and avoid repeating them in the future. But it doesn't make sense to slam Bill Clinton for doing what, in a lot of cases, he had to do.
Any American President will have to do business with the corporations which dominate our economy and therefore influence our policy. If we were to somehow elect a real firebrand liberal who refuses to yield an inch to corporate interests, he may be able complete his first and only term with his integrity intact and a record of nothing whatsoever moving through Congress. Congress has to represent its constituents, and a lot of them (a lot of us) depend on some of those evil corporations for our livelihoods.
Besides, who were we supposed to vote for? GHW Bush? Perot? Dole? Bill Clinton didn't do everything right (which is to say, the way I think I would have), but we were doing better then than we are now. And we'd be better off now if we had Al Gore as President since 2000. But we can't fix the past, only plan for the future.
I'll probably buy his stupid book anyway...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: porgygirl on Sep 18, 2007 10:39 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The nomination process is all about money; it's no surprise that the nominees are as well. What a pitiful system we've got.
While Hilary has sold out big time, she does strike me as smart and competent... and perhaps not entirely soulless. If she does end up getting elected, she might yet surprise us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opeluboy on Sep 18, 2007 3:17 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Over the Hill
Posted by: Susan Kipping
» RE: Over the Hill
Posted by: opeluboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Clockwise Cat on Sep 18, 2007 6:14 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YES THEY ARE. THEY ARE OLIGARCHS. THEY ARE AS BAD, IF NOT WORSE, THAN REPUBLICANS.
Kucinich is the only NON-CORPORATE Democrat who will do what's right by America.
Thanks for this wonderful article, Chris - thanks for having the nuts to expose the Clintons for who they are: Frauds and fascists, like the lot of 'em.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How can you??
Posted by: pierrot
» RE: How can you??
Posted by: Clockwise Cat
» RE: How can you??
Posted by: opeluboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eosrk on Sep 18, 2007 8:35 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pierrot on Sep 19, 2007 4:06 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can be intelligently right or wong and you can be stupidly wright or wrong.
I dont know about the ultimate effect of all these treaties, some may have failed. But that's certainly not a fault attributable to pres. Clinton - his intentions were the best and if he was wrong (if at all) he was it intelligently.
While Bush is systematically not only stupidly wrong he is lying which makes God vomit about this in effect godless man.
The only thing I will never understand about Bill Clinton and now Hillary(!) is his and her blind support of Israel. Israel today is a rough state if only by its intolerable, criminal violation of countless UN Resolutions, the Geneva Convetion, The Hague Convention, the Humanrights Convention by builing countless totally illegal (even according to isreli law!) civil(!) settlements in the occupied territories. A UNILATERAL aggression by Israel and supported by the USA, by its worst as well by its best presidents, over a period of time of 40(!) years against completlely innocent Palestinians who see their family and loved ones killed, deported, strangeled, emprisoned for no other reason that they want to live on their ancestral homeland. It's the biggest crime since WWII by a western democracy (and if you add the million victims in Irak and Lebanon) the giggest crime ever since WWII. There is NO excuse for this secular crime.
The day the US orders to stop and abandon the criminal, facist, racist settlement and retreat behind the 1967 border (keeping of course the waling wall) the WHOLE MUSLIM WORLD WILL EMBRACE you and there will be sudden peace.
Hillary, wake up, why not try, be couragous, kick the AIPAC (and Lieberman) as violently in the ass you can.
Have a 'PROFILE in COURAGE'!
In this sense, Clinton (the Clintons) are fully co-responsible for 9/11 which is without any doubt a direct consequence, a revenge for the US support of criminal Israel. It's hairaising it's unbelievable, it's extremely sad and above all it's terrifying that even the best people the US produces (lawyers!) can fail in their judgment to such an extent .... and rule the world with bombs on false premises.
It's like a black spot in their eyes. AIPAC is pure poison and Hillary licks their ass ...!
A lifelong friend of the USA and (in principal) of Israel.
Long live Jimmy Carter
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unfair
Posted by: opeluboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hankedson on Sep 19, 2007 10:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pierrot on Sep 19, 2007 1:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the hell motivates you to look for the hair in Clintons soup - e.g. critizicing his ridiculous 17 bio $ military budget increase at the same time the impersonification of devil Bush creates out of nothing an totally imaginary war against a solid, laic allie(!) who needed, by neccessity as we know now, a strong hand to manage his folks (and would have done perfectly well without a totally unwarranted decade long economic blockade instigated by the US ...), dilapidating already now about 2 trillion $ (that's twelve zeroes) of tax money - and for no succsess what so ever. 2 trillions to bury a million innocent irakis, 4000 brainwashed US soldiers and 100'000 wheelchairs!
Are you insane?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: VERY UNFAIR WHILE BLOW JOBBING BUSH DAYLY for 8 YEARS!
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: VERY UNFAIR WHILE BLOW JOBBING BUSH DAYLY for 8 YEARS!
Posted by: Clockwise Cat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: racetoinfinity on Sep 20, 2007 8:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fantastic job, and I look forward to reading more of your clear-headed and brave writing!
(I love your insight that contradictory ideas can thrive in our sound bite era.)
I have to say that, unfortunately, Al Gore was on board for all of this and was a cheerleader. I'd love to hear what he has to say about "free" trade now.
May I recommend to everyone a good book on this subject that goes into more detail about what went down in the Clinton admin. with globalization/"free" (unfair) trade - "The Global Class War" by Jeff Faux.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Sep 21, 2007 10:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Philanthropists" and "Givers" merely do such things as a pre-text, to excuse the way they are and the effects, intentional or not, of their actions on society and the planet.
I'm with Galeano.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wagadog on Sep 23, 2007 12:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the cover was the word GIVING and a picture...well, of a great big HEAD .
I rolled my eyes and snorted in contempt: "Figures."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: paul_revere on Sep 18, 2007 2:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always told others that the Clinton years were peaceful years. There was not a lot of division in the USA among the general population. Most of the static came from the rabid persecution by a small group of extremist right-wing nutjobs and the traitorous GOP members of Congress, which most of us ignored anyway (We really should have paid more attention). Lots of people made money and became complacent about our government and world affairs.
Despite the calm times, Clinton did some awful things, such as what the brilliant Chris Hedges has illustrated in this piece. Clinton also is responsible for the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This act was supposed to foster competition in the communications industry. Instead, it led to media consolidation and the slow death of independent news stations and other media. The number of major media companies went from around 80 in 1986, to 6 in 2005. Most newspapers, talk radio stations and television stations are merely propaganda outlets for the right-wing and the White House.
It wasn't until after the 2000 Selection that I woke up and began to realize what has really happened since Reagan (who is likely rotting in hell) and that we are all totally screwed unless we try to start a revolution internally. Changing the character (and the characters) in the Democratic Party seems to me to be the only hope, but it's going to take the right kind of leaders, those who will not cater to the corporations. That's why I fight. If there comes a day when there is no hope of fielding good leaders or making the Democratic Party better for the People, then it will be time to leave or start a real revolution. Not a good set of options to choose from, I must say.
So, let's bury Hillary and find someone better to support.
Thanks, Chris Hedges, for your wonderful article (and I bought and read your last book, too!)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hillary Smillary
Posted by: Spyder
» Smil-
Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: That's why ...
Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: That's why ...
Posted by: 1gma
» RE: That's why ...
Posted by: notinKansas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Sep 18, 2007 4:01 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My point is that all the talk of "betrayal" by the Dems is counter-productive. The party moves when the grassroots gives it no choice. There is no conscience there, and there never has been, nothing is being betrayed, it is what it is. If you want change, stop waiting for Daddy or Mommy in the guise of Dean, or Obama, or Kucinich, or whoever. Make it happen in your communities, and at the state level. Build bridges with people whose needs you can see right in front of you. Washington politics has never worked for any length of time for progressives, any successes there have always been the result of movement building at the local and state level. Capitalism needs predictability and social order to flourish... don't let them have it, and you can win concessions. Wait for the "right" people to lead the party, and you'll be waiting forever.
Thanks
Peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Activism may prove insufficient
Posted by: LMNOP
» Agreed
Posted by: daw13
» RE: Agreed
Posted by: gazooks
» RE: correct observations? A view from abroad.
Posted by: pierrot
» RE: correct observations, false conclusion
Posted by: raywigton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nc green on Sep 18, 2007 4:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, the Democrats are just there to give the elites somewhere to go when we the people won't put up with their robber baron crap anymore, but even in that capacity they weren't always the toadies of big money. I think of Carter and JFK. There was no revolution pending during either of those presidencies, yet they behaved at least marginally like progressives.
Clinton never even crossed the left side of the centrist divider.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Finally ...
Posted by: Leman
» LBJ is the the only progressive President in recent history.
Posted by: CatDad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urstrly on Sep 18, 2007 4:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: On the Money
Posted by: ray burchard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Sep 18, 2007 5:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And where was Billo while this countries constitution was and still is being ravaged by the Shrub?
In general, this war and all its folly could not have happened without the compliance of the Democraps to this day.
One more term of a Clinton or one of the Repukes running this country should allow the fork to be put in for good as far as the working man is concerned.
Oh, where, oh where is a true progressive leader that is not still shrouded in the regressiveness of iron age religious superstition?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thanks for helping to confirm...
Posted by: dover23
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 18, 2007 5:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, I would guess that Clinton was confused about or trying to strike a balance with his role as president between the forces of wealth and power and workers' wages and rights. (That's being kind.) Because economics are more difficult to predict than the weather; there is no Doppler radar or map to forecast the effects of economic changes, and also, the starting economic premise, in this case "free market economics," is generally flawed.
Case in point: "let the market decide!" Well, what has eleven years of free, open trade taught us? The flow of capital goes disproportionately to the rich corporations. The rich corporations need energy (oil) to fuel their insatiable thirst for profits, so the neo-con president starts an illegal war in an oil rich country to temporarily ensure the oil faucet is wide open. Meanwhile, that same president opens the doors for wars in two other oil rich countries (Iran and Venezuela): just good planning for the future: ) China is an industrial powerhouse with its cheap and plentiful labor and lax environmental standards.
Meanwhile, workers wages and rights around the world erode to 19th century standards and practices making sweat shop labor the norm. An environmental crisis looms on the horizon, and the newest crop of Repubs and Dems offer no real solution (with one or two unelectable? exceptions). This is the new era of world trade!
Let's call it what it is: world trade means empire building, and any candidate who supports free trade agreements and refuses to create a single payer universal healthcare program is part of the problem not the solution.
We progressives can fight to change it now, or wait out the slower but inevitable destruction of american society that is sure to follow by voting for the likes of Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and any Republican, including Ron Paul. Kucinich, though, is the only candidate who has the platform and the voting record for standing for the people. We can get off our computers and go door to door for Kucinich or we can sit at our desks and bitch about it to each other.
peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Which came first: the corp egg or Dem Chicken?
Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: Which came first: the corp egg or Dem Chicken?
Posted by: peacelf
» NAFTA = free trade? not according to your hero Chomsky
Posted by: dover23
» you're clearly confused!
Posted by: Iconoclast421
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Sep 18, 2007 6:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a student of the of history, I have done a lot of reading about the French Revolution lately. Too often, history books and high school students are taught that the French Revolution is like something that just sort of "happened", like a hurricane or earthquake. But before the Revolution occurred, there were forces and attitudes that led up to it. One of them was a faux and paternalistic "charity" by the nobility towards the murmuring masses. Check out how Marie Antoinette built a gilded marble farm where she could play at being a peasant.
Clintons' book mirrors perfectly the attitude of the ruling classes immediately before the revolution broke.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE:USA more likely to become a full-blooded Police State than..
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Bankrupt of ideas--French Revolution redux
Posted by: NumberSix
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocketman on Sep 18, 2007 6:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“”$200-billion highway and transportation package for the big construction companies”” – we have of late been rightly bashing Bush for not keeping up with infrastructure spending.. we can allocate money for Blackwater and Halliburton but not for potholes!)
We can’t blame Clinton for doing what we criticize Bush for NOT doing..
While it’s no doubt that Clinton plays to the same audience as the republicans, the rest of the democratic candidates do the same to some degree and play to the Hollywood scene, a group of do nothings who might throw a few dollars to “needy causes” but in reality live the excessive lifestyle that seems to go against democratic values!
Anyone who can leave office with one of the highest approval ratings of any president after enduring an impeachment had to do some things right.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: a true "Republicrat"
Posted by: LMNOP
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lamar on Sep 18, 2007 6:52 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You also get on his case because he didn't promote the progressive pet projects. But don't you remember Hillarycare? The attempt at universal healthcare was shot down by the public, much the same way the public shot down Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security accounts. Then the message of 1994 was clear: big-government liberal programs were no longer on the table. They were getting slashed, in fact. Blame Clinton for Welfare reform, but I think a three year grace period to go back to work is reasonable. Perpetual welfare was certainly not an option.
Perhaps authors like Hedges are blaming Clinton for our own failures. Afterall, we are the ones who shop at these giant corporations and give them the money to lobby government and buy politicians. We've failed (and I'm with you on the anti-corporate rant, so I say "we") to stem the tide of corporate expansion. The poor eat at McDonald's and shop at Wal-Mart. Is this Clinton's fault? The middle class sees its entrepreneurial spirit turn into middle management at a super store, yet the middle class continues to shop at the corporate stores. The wealthy develop (lose?) their own identities through upscale brands and wasteful cars, which is all still corporate America.
Blame whomever you want, but we are doing this to ourselves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hedges still yearning for the Gingrich "Contract with America" days? Or just another Clinton hater?
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Misdirected rage? And blaming Clinton for 17 bio $ more for the military ...
Posted by: pierrot
» RE: Misdirected money on roads - not maintenance, but new sprawlways
Posted by: permatopia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mrtshw on Sep 18, 2007 8:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arkansas never benefitted from the Clintons' contributions...until Bill's rich friends and thousands of brain dead contributors of modest means enabled him to build a monument to his ego fittingly shaped in the form of a mobile home and called The Clinton Presidential Library which overlooks the Arkansas River in my homestate.... and which also overlooks the profound ethical shortcomings of the Clintons.
Chris Hedges' accurate depiction of the Clintons' amoral lack of charity pales when compared to his enabling the sale of blood drawn from inmates in the Arkansas Cummins Prison during most of his administration; notwithstanding his full knowledge most of this blood was HIV and hepatitis contaminated. Briefly stated, Bill Clinton, while governor, knowingly authorized and protected "Friends of Bill" in an appalling scheme to harvest and sell contaminated blood and plasma from Cummins prison farm near Grady, Arkansas.
The prisoners were bled nearly daily and paid $7 per unit, while the units brought $70 per unit to the " Friends of Bill ".
The scheme continued throughout his governorship in defiance of sound medical practice, numerous warnings and flagrant violations of FDA regulations. Tainted blood from Cummins infected literally millions of people with HIV (the AIDS virus) and potentially lethal Hepatitis C (20%-25% fatality rate) all over the world -- Canada, Japan, England, Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and not least, the United States. Clinton and his partners netted millions from it annually. I bet no one is surprised Bill Clinton now devotes much of his "charity" energy to alleviating the devastation of aids in Africa...probably the only continent his tainted prison blood has not infected!
Numerous other unreported and/or underreported scandals during the Arkansas Clinton years still dot our landscape here in our state....along with Clinton's multimillion dollar eyesore.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SackofWoe0 on Sep 18, 2007 8:26 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: GET OVER IT!
Posted by: Clockwise Cat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: shangrilalad on Sep 18, 2007 9:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever conservatives have the power to do whatever they want, they do whatever they want, laws and constitution be damned.
If Americans haven’t learned that lesson again, like they did after the Great Depression, then we can expect another depression, and maybe a whole lot worse this time. Unfettered Capitalism is a compulsive gambler betting other people’s money.
.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mgloraine on Sep 18, 2007 10:07 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should certainly review what came to pass during the Clinton Administration, identify the "bum steers" and problems which ensued as a result, and make plans for the future which correct for errors of the past and avoid repeating them in the future. But it doesn't make sense to slam Bill Clinton for doing what, in a lot of cases, he had to do.
Any American President will have to do business with the corporations which dominate our economy and therefore influence our policy. If we were to somehow elect a real firebrand liberal who refuses to yield an inch to corporate interests, he may be able complete his first and only term with his integrity intact and a record of nothing whatsoever moving through Congress. Congress has to represent its constituents, and a lot of them (a lot of us) depend on some of those evil corporations for our livelihoods.
Besides, who were we supposed to vote for? GHW Bush? Perot? Dole? Bill Clinton didn't do everything right (which is to say, the way I think I would have), but we were doing better then than we are now. And we'd be better off now if we had Al Gore as President since 2000. But we can't fix the past, only plan for the future.
I'll probably buy his stupid book anyway...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: porgygirl on Sep 18, 2007 10:39 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The nomination process is all about money; it's no surprise that the nominees are as well. What a pitiful system we've got.
While Hilary has sold out big time, she does strike me as smart and competent... and perhaps not entirely soulless. If she does end up getting elected, she might yet surprise us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opeluboy on Sep 18, 2007 3:17 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Over the Hill
Posted by: Susan Kipping
» RE: Over the Hill
Posted by: opeluboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Clockwise Cat on Sep 18, 2007 6:14 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YES THEY ARE. THEY ARE OLIGARCHS. THEY ARE AS BAD, IF NOT WORSE, THAN REPUBLICANS.
Kucinich is the only NON-CORPORATE Democrat who will do what's right by America.
Thanks for this wonderful article, Chris - thanks for having the nuts to expose the Clintons for who they are: Frauds and fascists, like the lot of 'em.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How can you??
Posted by: pierrot
» RE: How can you??
Posted by: Clockwise Cat
» RE: How can you??
Posted by: opeluboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eosrk on Sep 18, 2007 8:35 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pierrot on Sep 19, 2007 4:06 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can be intelligently right or wong and you can be stupidly wright or wrong.
I dont know about the ultimate effect of all these treaties, some may have failed. But that's certainly not a fault attributable to pres. Clinton - his intentions were the best and if he was wrong (if at all) he was it intelligently.
While Bush is systematically not only stupidly wrong he is lying which makes God vomit about this in effect godless man.
The only thing I will never understand about Bill Clinton and now Hillary(!) is his and her blind support of Israel. Israel today is a rough state if only by its intolerable, criminal violation of countless UN Resolutions, the Geneva Convetion, The Hague Convention, the Humanrights Convention by builing countless totally illegal (even according to isreli law!) civil(!) settlements in the occupied territories. A UNILATERAL aggression by Israel and supported by the USA, by its worst as well by its best presidents, over a period of time of 40(!) years against completlely innocent Palestinians who see their family and loved ones killed, deported, strangeled, emprisoned for no other reason that they want to live on their ancestral homeland. It's the biggest crime since WWII by a western democracy (and if you add the million victims in Irak and Lebanon) the giggest crime ever since WWII. There is NO excuse for this secular crime.
The day the US orders to stop and abandon the criminal, facist, racist settlement and retreat behind the 1967 border (keeping of course the waling wall) the WHOLE MUSLIM WORLD WILL EMBRACE you and there will be sudden peace.
Hillary, wake up, why not try, be couragous, kick the AIPAC (and Lieberman) as violently in the ass you can.
Have a 'PROFILE in COURAGE'!
In this sense, Clinton (the Clintons) are fully co-responsible for 9/11 which is without any doubt a direct consequence, a revenge for the US support of criminal Israel. It's hairaising it's unbelievable, it's extremely sad and above all it's terrifying that even the best people the US produces (lawyers!) can fail in their judgment to such an extent .... and rule the world with bombs on false premises.
It's like a black spot in their eyes. AIPAC is pure poison and Hillary licks their ass ...!
A lifelong friend of the USA and (in principal) of Israel.
Long live Jimmy Carter
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unfair
Posted by: opeluboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hankedson on Sep 19, 2007 10:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pierrot on Sep 19, 2007 1:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the hell motivates you to look for the hair in Clintons soup - e.g. critizicing his ridiculous 17 bio $ military budget increase at the same time the impersonification of devil Bush creates out of nothing an totally imaginary war against a solid, laic allie(!) who needed, by neccessity as we know now, a strong hand to manage his folks (and would have done perfectly well without a totally unwarranted decade long economic blockade instigated by the US ...), dilapidating already now about 2 trillion $ (that's twelve zeroes) of tax money - and for no succsess what so ever. 2 trillions to bury a million innocent irakis, 4000 brainwashed US soldiers and 100'000 wheelchairs!
Are you insane?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: VERY UNFAIR WHILE BLOW JOBBING BUSH DAYLY for 8 YEARS!
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: VERY UNFAIR WHILE BLOW JOBBING BUSH DAYLY for 8 YEARS!
Posted by: Clockwise Cat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: racetoinfinity on Sep 20, 2007 8:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fantastic job, and I look forward to reading more of your clear-headed and brave writing!
(I love your insight that contradictory ideas can thrive in our sound bite era.)
I have to say that, unfortunately, Al Gore was on board for all of this and was a cheerleader. I'd love to hear what he has to say about "free" trade now.
May I recommend to everyone a good book on this subject that goes into more detail about what went down in the Clinton admin. with globalization/"free" (unfair) trade - "The Global Class War" by Jeff Faux.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Sep 21, 2007 10:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Philanthropists" and "Givers" merely do such things as a pre-text, to excuse the way they are and the effects, intentional or not, of their actions on society and the planet.
I'm with Galeano.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wagadog on Sep 23, 2007 12:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the cover was the word GIVING and a picture...well, of a great big HEAD .
I rolled my eyes and snorted in contempt: "Figures."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




