Clintonian compromise -- win, lose or draw?

[lwcon]

Even if you put Ken Starr's jism hunt aside, Bill Clinton's legacy is vexing.

Was his centrism constructive pragmatism or a damnable sell-out?

Is compromise the proper way to operate in a checks-and-balances democracy, or does it leave us compromised?

As the leftysphere has well and properly alerted us, the MSM is beating the drum for a fictitious need for bipartisanship in the 110th Congress.

Our country (not to mention a little place I call "Iraq") is reeling from the scorched-earth, reality-be-damned neo-conservatism of the last several years.

Only a complete asshole would argue that the new Democrat-led Congress should give the slightest deference to the gang that not only couldn't shoot straight, it couldn't pick the right target, either.

Still, the Dems' Senate majority is wafer-thin (and unlikely to match the Repubs for lock-step unity), and they remain outnumbered in the Executive and Judicial branches.

So, how do we make progress?

Is Clintonian accommodationism a good idea or bad?

Perhaps its signature example is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

John Shalikashvili, Clinton's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now argues that it was a successful stepping-stone that has prepared the military to go the full Monty: rescinding altogether its restrictions on gays.

Once we're done marveling at the irony of Bush's Crusade so depleting the military that he may be forced to arm outed Sodomites, one wonders whether Clinton's triangulated policy was, in fact, a good idea.

Likewise, how should we remember Booker T. Washington?

The Atlanta Compromise Address, delivered before the Cotton States Exposition in 1895, enlarged Washington's influence into the arena of race relations and black leadership. Washington offered black acquiescence in disfranchisement and social segregation if whites would encourage black progress in economic and educational opportunity.

Did he deliver the most advancement then available to African Americans? Or did his deals with the devil slow the march to true freedom?

If we want to vilify Booker T., should the same go double for Ben Franklin and company, who acquiesced to slavery in post-colonial America?

For me, last year's torture bill brought a compromise on top of a compromise: I couldn't possibly condone votes in favor of it, yet I couldn't condone not voting for those primary-winning Democrats who did, lest the party that Overton Windowed this desecration of the Constitution retain the House and Senate.

I do think, for all its post-modern absurdity, "don't ask, don't tell" probably did represent the only progress then available vs. the aggressively homophobic policy it supplanted. But it's still half a loaf, when a full loaf is the right thing to do.

With the Worst President Ever still in the White House and the media still avidly trying to herd our fellow citizens and representatives rightward, we surely haven't seen the last unholy compromise.

The question is will we be able to sleep at night... and will it be fitful or the sleep of the just?

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[blm]

1. Bill's biggest crime against African-American communities was the covering up of

CIA drugrunning that had dumped tons of cheap cocaine into their communities and was a significant part of the complex IranContra story.

When the facts came out in Gary Webb's 1996 article, the Clinton WH downplayed the facts and set up NYT, LATimes and WaPost reporters with false claims against Webb's reporting.

BET has a series called American Gangsters which covered the documentation behind the matter - including the CIA documents that turned up in 1998 that backed up Webb's reporting.

Clinton covered up for Poppy Bush - - - yet again.

No more secrecy and privilege. This country can't afford it.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[Zodiak]

3. "In my territories the drug would be restricted to the darkest districts.

the coloreds. They're animals anyways, so let them lose their souls."--Don Cuneo (or was it Stracci?)

A shocking line from the Godfather, but unfortunately too many share this sentiment in large or small measure. It makes me sick, but I cannot help but to think that racism is a major factor in sweeping these drug issues under the rug. Classism makes it far worse.

I would also argue that gutting the welfare program with welfare-to-work has hurt African-american comminuties badly. Not because so many are on welfare (because more whites are on welfare), but because the places they are forcefully employed are not in their neighborhoods, necessitating long commutes. This erodes the family and makes conditions worse in the neighborhood because the moms and dads aren't home or easily available.

[blm]

6. Check out BET's documentary American Gangster - they show CIA documents

that backed up Gary Webb's report. They also bring out the fact that other newspapers targeted Webb and attacked him as a liar. They couldn't have done that without Clinton WH pushing that storyline while they held onto the documents as long as they could till the story died down.

http://www.bet.com/BETShows/americangangster.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic&WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished

[Zodiak]

2. It may be true that compromise is usually the end

That does not mean that one should go into negotiation with the intent of compromising. Compromise and triangulation should never be an ideology unto itself.

Know why? Because by openly stating compromise and triagulation as an intent, you hand control of the frame to your opponent.

Think of it this way. If a person buying a car said it is his intent to moderate the price a little (rather than go for the lowest price possible), then all the seller would have to do to jack up profits is to raise the price a TON. Then, when the triangulator shaves a little off the top, the seller gets exactly what he wanted going into the negotiation.

This is how the Democrats have been for years now. They no longer fight for what is right, but they think the Republicans will agree to. In doing so, the Republicans have responded by demanding MUCH more, forcing the centrists further right to meet them. In the end, we end up with one party in lock-step with the hard-line position, and the other fractured between those that want to fight for principles and those who are rushing to the right to meet the other side. In the end...everyone loses except the hard-liners.

It is probably what happened in many of the historical precedents you cite. All of which ended in conflagarations that set the compromise back to the liberal position. Perhaps, for once, it would be wise to fight to win rather than what would "make everyone happy". The other side has long ago caught on to that strategy and are killing us with it.

[lwcon]

5. Nicely said, ZI! n/t

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[KingFlorez]

4. He knew how to get things done

He might not have done everything right, but he did get a lot accomplished. Sometimes it takes centrism to get things done and you can have centrism without selling out. Democrats can compromise without selling out.

[blm]

7. He was unable to get many things done BECAUSE he CHOSE to not pursue outstanding

issues in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and in 1996 actively downplayed CIA drugrunning.

Had those matters been more fully exposed, there would have been no CHANCE of a Bush2 administration and no Republica congress seeking impeachment. There would have been no 9-11 and no Iraq war. There would have been no cancelling of every gain made under Clinton, either - so who did it help in the long run?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[happyslug]

8. I compare Clinton to Grover Cleveland

Grover Cleveland won the Presidency in 1884 (lost it in 1888) and won it back in 1892. His first term is considered one of the best Presidency the US ever had, he expanded Civil Service (Which the GOP had been blocking for decades) and improved the finances of the US Government (Through one of the bad things he did do was sign Legislations that removed from the statute Books the few Federal Laws on Voting Rights, through Civil Service would stay NON-Segregated till Wilson's presidency).

On the other hand Cleveland's Second term is considered one of the worse Presidents the US had ever had. During a Railroad strike, the Strikers stopped all Trains going through Chicago EXCEPT THOSE WITH POST OFFICE RAIL CARS. Cleveland's Post Master General then made sure EVERY TRAIN had a Post Office Car, the strikers seeing their good intentions being used against them stopped ALL Trains, including Trains with post Office Cars on them. For this Cleavland said this was inferring with the mails and thus he could send in US Troops against the Strikers.

Cleveland also ignored the Economic plight of the Country (The US was in a Depression, deep enough that you had one of the first "Marches" on Washington to do something). Cleveland also had refused to do anything "Progressive" when it came to regulation Corporations, Railroads or the Economy. (And no through of passing anything that would protect labor).

Now, not all or anti-labor activity of the time period can be set at Cleveland's feet (The Homestead Strike occurred in 1892, during the Election so the GOP had the Presidency at that point) but he was a conservative Democrat who was NOT going to be "Progressive" except in areas of Government, business was to be left alone (Thus while Cleveland supported Civil Service, he opposed any similar protection for Laborers working for Private Enterprise, or any restrictions on Private Enterprise). Thus in many way Cleveland is much like Clinton, Wants to improve Government but otherwise a Conservative and as such i a transitional person from the Me-to Democratic Party of the Post Civil War Era, to the Liberal.Progressive Democratic party of the 20th Century. That Switch occurred in 1896 when Cleveland was denied another term and even the power to select his proposed successor, instead the Nomination went to the progressive wing of the Party with William Jennings Bryan. Bryan would lose the election (by less than 5 %) while the GOP outspent him 10-1 (and some historians believe McKinley defeated Bryan by GOP stealing the election through fraud).

Anyway, the Party switched direction after Cleveland, out went the attitude of the Democratic Party being a me-to party, the Democratic Party was going to be a progressive party (Through keeping traditional Democratic Conservatives, mostly in the South, happy and in the party, thus no effort even under FDR to end Segregation which came into general us in the South only in the 1892-1900 period).

Thus even under FDR, the Democratic Party would tolerate discrimination against Blacks in an effort to stay in power. This started under Bryan, through both Bryan and FDR personally opposed Segregation, both also wanted to get elected and that required support from the South at that time period. Thus any movement by the Democrats against Segregation would have to wait till the Democrats were a Solid Majority (Which did not occur till FDR) for any desegregation program to start (During WWII the Building Docks of the South under Federal Control to build ships were desegregated, under Truman the Military was desegregated, and finally under LBJ you had the Civil Rights Acts Passed, all together caused the Democrats to lose the south (and the reason the GOP has controlled the Federal Government since 1980).

Thus it takes a while to do what is right, Bryan, FDR, Truman, LBJ all show how long it took to do the progressive acts all of them advocated and the one who won election had passed (Bryan was the first and advocated most if not all of the New Deal and later progressive acts the Democrats passed, but could not passed them himself for he never won election). Herbert Hoover, when he attacked FDR's New Deal, by calling it Byran-ism without Bryan was trying to say the New Deal was to "radical" for America and only a Radical like Bryan would support such laws. In this Hoover was not alone, Al Smith Bryan's main opponent in the Democratic Party in the 1920s opposed the New Deal and is believed to have opposed FDR more on the grounds that FDR had embraced the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party while rejecting the "Conservative" wing lead by the 1930s by Al Smith. FDR could do this for the American People had finally realized that only Radical Change could save the US and this embraced what Bryan had advocated 40 years before. FDR also kept the Conservative Wing happy by dragging his feet in regard to desegregation (Which is the same policy JFK would do in the early 1960s). When FDR did it, the country was not yet ready for desegregation, when JFK tried to do the same he found himself being dragged along with events (Thus JFK's decision to mobilize the Southern National Guard Units during period of Civil Rights Unrest in the South, more to keep them in their Barracks and hopefully the Civil Right Unrest out of the press, then to help ot hinder segregation).

Thus my point, Clinton is like Cleveland, he was a better Republican than were the Republican but unlike the GOP, Clinton knew what Government could do and used the Government to do good. What is needed now is someone to take the party forward on a liberal/progressive road. Clinton can not do that (and neither can Hillary). Thus the issue is who will be the William Jennings Bryan of the 21st Century. Who will take the Democratic Party (sometime kicking and screaming) down the progressive road? Obamam is mentioned but I hate to say this he looks like another CLinton, good speaker, but what does he support that can be passed? Is Obama willing to take the hit for supporting high gasoline taxation to stop global warming? Is Obama willing to demand that Businesses give Overtime to people earning less than Medium income (Which a lot of Retailers do NOT)? It is easy to oppose Global Warming and to help the working class, the hard part is HOW. Thus I prefer Dean or Gore to Obama, both have expressed details on how to solve the Problem of Global Warming, Labor wage decline and even the war in Iraq, as opposed to other candidates who are on record opposing Global Warming, the problem with Labor and the war in Iraq, but give no details on how they will address those problems. Some finesse is always needed (Look at Bryan and FDR when it came to Blacks and Civil Rights) and you will never get a "perfect" Candidate (look at Bryan's support for Prohibition and opposition to Evolution). On the other hand you have to have an candidate that STANDS FOR SOMETHING other then his or her good looks. Could JKF get the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress? NO, it took someone truly committed to Civil Rights, committed enough to agree to to lose the South for a Generation or more. That was LBJ, LBJ's fight to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act through the Senate (where he needed 67 votes out of 100 Senator) was a master stroke (But then LBJ went into Vietnam, which JFK may not have). You take the good with the bad, but the Democratic Party needs someone who is both progressive and a politician. The Candidate needs to stand for vague values on issues that do not matter or may never be passed (Federal acknowledgment of Gay marriages for example) while specific on issues that do matter (i.e. HOW to solve the problem of Global Warming, HOW to solve the problem with Labor's decline in Income, HOW to solve the problem of Discrimination against Gays in the Military).