Clinton and the Democrats

This Michael Tomasky cri de coeur is getting some attention:

I don't know who on this planet has the stature to go face-to-face with Bill Clinton and look him in the eye and tell him he behaved in a discreditable fashion. His wife? His buddy Vernon Jordan? Whoever it is, someone had better stop him. He campaigned against a fellow Democrat no differently than if Obama had been Newt Gingrich. The Clinton campaign may conclude that, numerically and on balance, Bill helped. But, trust me, to the thousands of committed progressives who supported him when he really needed it, who went to the mat for him at his moment of (largely self-inflicted) crisis but who now happen to be supporting someone other than his wife, he's done himself a tremendous amount of damage.

So is Mark Steyn's retort:

Tomasky's missing the point: It's in part because "thousands of committed progressives... went to the mat for him" that he's in a position to screw you over ten years later. He decided back then he'd do what was necessary to win. Why would you expect him to behave any differently today?

I have long been of the opinion that the best possible outcome to the Lewinsky affair, both for the country and (especially) for the Democratic Party, would have been for leading Democrats to find a way to pressure Clinton into resigning. I tend to agree with Clinton's defenders, at the time and today, that his conduct didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and that the GOP crusade to force him out of office was ill-considered folly. But something can be a "resignable" offense, if you will, without being an appropriate matter for a Senate trial, and if the Democrats had treated it as such - if one by one they had gone on television and stated that the President had dishonored himself and his office and ought to step down - they would have not only spared the country an enormous amount of acrimony and embarrassment, but avoided their ongoing Bill Clinton problem as well.

Instead, by going to the mat for Clinton in 1998, progressives like Tomasky probably cost themselves the 2000 election (since an Al Gore who could have said what he really thought about his boss's conduct might have been an Al Gore capable of winning 52 percent of the vote), while simultaneously identifying themselves with Clinton to such an extent that now they're effectively at his mercy, stuck appealing to his sense of honor (!) while he plays attack dog against Barack Obama. And while it's unlikely that the Clinton's primary-season conduct - his willingness to go scorched-earth to guarantee Hillary the nomination - will cost the Dems the White House '08 the way his Oval Office conduct may have cost them the election in '00, at the very least he's providing the GOP with a rare ray of hope in a year when everything seems to be going the Dems' way.

I don't say this as a Clinton hater by any stretch: I think there are any number of reasons (from my conservative point of view, but also from a liberal one) to prefer Hillary to Obama, and while Bill's decision to go the mattresses on her behalf isn't exactly admirable, it's certainly understandable. (I'd probably do exactly the same thing if my wife were running for President.) But it seems like it's been an awfully long time since what's good for the Clintons has been good for the health of the Democratic Party - which suggests that American liberals, in their late-Nineties haste to defend one of their own against the depredations of Kenneth Starr, ended up making something of a sucker's bet.

Photo by Flickr user Chuckumentary used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

Could we hear some of that"any number of reasons" please, Ross? Also, surely the best outcome for the Dems in '08 is see Hillary lose, divest themselves of the Clinton Reptile Farm, and watch as McCain fails miserably to handle the Bush recession plus Iraq. There's a lot to be said for letting the Republicans try to clean up their own mess and fail, while the Democrats build a real coalition, without the deadening impact of the First Pervert and The Heroine with a Thousand Triangulations.

Posted by sashaqz | January 21, 2008 10:17 PM

Ahem, Ross, unless I missed his latest self-promotion, Clinton (WJ) is not yet "the Clinton" (see your comment "it's unlikely that THE Clinton's primary-season conduct ". Also, Bill Clinton has been going to the mattresses on his own behalf for quite a long time. Presumably he is doing so for Hillary in order to bring some variety into a life hollow with sexual excess and jaded by mendacity.

Posted by kergulen | January 21, 2008 10:51 PM

Punditry aside, I think it's a no-win strategy, two people ganging up on one person just doesn't square with most people. It isn't fair. And when that one person is black, and the two are rich white folk - what are the Clintons thinking? Or more precisely, who do they think they are?
Why do they always think they can improvise and break the rules - there's something almost unnatural about how they pursue power. The Clintons are turning this into a referendum on the Clinton Administration. A big mistake. This is about moving forward. These backward looking boomers are narcissists. We're tired of your music and your politics.

Posted by fougasseu | January 21, 2008 10:52 PM

So if the Dems had only gone along with what even Ross acknowledges was a witch hunt, thy'd be in much better shape. And yeah shashqaz, settling in for another term or two of GOP control of the WH and endless war would surely be good the Democrats. This is advice?

Look, Bill acted foolishly, and progressive that I am, I have some issues of my own with the triangulation, cozying up the Newt Gingrich, and the like, but the impeachment charge was trumped up bullshit from a prosecutor out of control and a power-mad Congress. Fighting it was the right thing to do. Had Dems rolled over for that Gore would have limped into the 200 campaign a crippled candidate, a Gerry Ford.

What you guys seem to forget is that the American people love Bill Clinton, and loved him most when the GOP was trying to fry him. I back Obama, but after 8 years of Bush, a Clinton restoration looks pretty good.

Posted by Justin K. | January 21, 2008 11:06 PM

That's sashaqz to you, Justinette! Now, let's see - the nation loved Clinton? Except the Republicans? Except real liberals, who remember DOMA, don't ask don't tell, Monica, Gennifer, Paula (and anyone else who ever passed through the Oval Office when Bill was in his Mr Gropy loves you mood? Hmm, better learn to do the math, cutie, and remember just who lost the Democrats the midterm elections with an amazing consistency. Now, let's talk about Hillary, who has all the negatives, and none of the old fraud's sleazy charm. Yup, a good candidate for a serious ass-whipping, especially from John McCain. Tears won't help when the Republicans get to work. And yes, if the Dems had cleaned house, they might have won in 2000, and we would not have that slimy pair of vultures Bush and Cheney flapping over us. Frankly, if we could lose the Clintons tomorrow, we would all be better off.

Posted by sashaqz | January 21, 2008 11:14 PM

I don't know who on this planet has the stature to go face-to-face with Bill Clinton and look him in the eye and tell him he behaved in a discreditable fashion. His wife? His buddy Vernon Jordan?

One might infer that Mr. Tomasky has an impoverished imagination, or an idiosyncratic definition of 'stature'.

they would have not only spared the country an enormous amount of acrimony and embarrassment, but avoided their ongoing Bill Clinton problem as well.

Democratic politicos and their kindred in college administrations can avoid an ongoing Clinton problem by not extending invitations to Mr. Clinton to speak. That they do not do so suggest they regard the problem as trumped by advantages. (If they perceive a problem at all).

I tend to agree with Clinton's defenders, at the time and today, that his conduct didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense,

Realizing that there are differences of opinion on this matter among lawyers, I would point out Richard Posner's assessment that, under ordinary circumstances, prosecutorial discretion would not have saved a private citizen in Mr. Clinton's position from an indictment; and that the prescribed sentance for his portfolio of offenses would be about 30 to 37 months. Please recall also that he was disbarred.

There is also the matter of the pardons extravaganza he staged while leaving office, which one might see as a stagey wink or an upraised middle finger, whatever suits you.

After 1974, Richard Nixon's words made several appearances in bookstores, but Richard Nixon's corpus was seldom in evidence (the David Frost interviews and his appearance at Anwar el-Sadat's funeral the exceptions). He also dispensed with Secret Service protection during the last years of his life. The man couldn't even fob his papers off on Duke University, much less manufacture an obtrusive public role for himself. Perhaps this was so because he, the political class, and any potential constituency of his possessed a certain quantum of shame and embarrassment that is not universally present.

Someone is inviting Clinton to put in public appearances, someone must be paying the price of the ticket, and someone is calculating that his presence here, there, and the next place will serve their purposes. It is difficult to see why. What did he fix? The most salient departure in public policy of those years was welfare reform, a Republican initiative; he inherited no acute economic problems (the economy had been in recovery for 21 months when he took office) and chronic economic problems like the current-account deficit remained unresolved; and no American President in 60-odd years had faced a more agreeable international situation. Unlike Daniel Patrick Moynihan or Mario Cuomo, he appears to have no notable observations to make about political or social life; unlike Ed Koch or Bella Abzug, he is not entertaining. The Democratic Party also blew a succession of federal elections on his watch.

What is the deal between Clinton and his audience? The deal may be that Clinton has done but squat which embarrasses him in front of his constituency and that his constituency is made up of 1.) people whose ethical judgments are occluded by a display of social skills or 2.) people whose conception of what there is to be embarrassed about in this life are not what he did or 3.) people who admire him because he repels and alienates constituencies they despise.

Kicking Clinton to the curb might scarcely occur to people in any of these categories; coming to the conclusion that he is a problem might require that they recalibrate their conception of who they themselves are in relation to others they do not care for very much.

Posted by Art Deco | January 21, 2008 11:21 PM

Ross, you captured my sentiments exactly.

And, when you add to this the fact that the Clintons are not liberal to begin with, but were the conservatives that the party turned to because we felt we couldn't win an election with a liberal, and I for the life of me don't know why liberals are defending these people.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 21, 2008 11:24 PM

Re Bill "going to the mats" for Hillary. I think I remember that when Elizabeth Dole ran for president a few years ago, her husband -- Bob Dole -- said publicly that he didn't think he would vote for her! How pathetic is that! Bill's ardent support for Hillary is a positive for HRC's campaign. Isn't it strange that so many people have written positively about Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt's strong political partnership when they were in the White House, but are uncomfortable with Bill and Hillary's strong political partnership. Obviously, people are more comfortable with the "wife" as the partner; by running for President, Hillary (and Bill) are turning a lot of these conventions upside down. I think it's great -- it's also fun to watch.

Posted by Lisa | January 21, 2008 11:59 PM

Lisa, people write about the Roosevelt partnership because it had great class and dignity, as well as being beneficial to Americans. As for Bill's ardent support, if you think yelling at reporters, lying without cease or excuse, and the whole tawdry history of his gropes, harassment, infidelity, perjury and serial falsehood is a plus - well, you must have drunk the Clinton KoolAid pretty desperately. Many principled people would love to be rid of the two triangulating, lying, corrupt little used-car dealers that they are.

Posted by sashaqz | January 22, 2008 12:04 AM

"going to the mattresses" - you just couldn't resist, could you?

Posted by Josh | January 22, 2008 12:22 AM

And, when you add to this the fact that the Clintons are not liberal to begin with, but were the conservatives that the party turned to because we felt we couldn't win an election with a liberal,

You are not using political terminology in a way calculated to communicate with clarity.

Among Mrs. Clinton's activities over the years were advocacy on behalf of the abolition of legal minority status, presiding over the board of the Legal Services Corporation at a time when legal services lawyers were engaged in a project of raiding the Corporation's resources to finance class-actions suits to advance their political views, and proposing to place under federal superintendency a service industry accounting for one-seventh of gross domestic product.

As for her husband, he put Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court and Joycelyn Elders in charge of the Public Health Service. I do not think he was inspired to do so by reading works by Russell Kirk.

Posted by Art Deco | January 22, 2008 12:33 AM

Lisa, people write about the Roosevelt partnership because it had great class and dignity

You might say had the strengths and deficiencies of the patriciate of that era. Westbrook Pegler was able to use what was publically known of the latter to make sport of them. (Also, their children were an embarrassment, contracting nineteen marriages between them, with none of the five of them married fewer than three times).

Isn't it strange that so many people have written positively about Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt's strong political partnership when they were in the White House, but are uncomfortable with Bill and Hillary's strong political partnership.

If you are able, I would recommend you visit Mrs. Roosevelt's house in Dutchess County, New York, now owned by the National Park Service. It is located near the Hyde Park estate. She both lived and worked in that house from 1936 to her death in 1962. It is a very modest agreeable piece of architecture in its design; it was actually constructed in 1926 to house one of Mrs. Roosevelt's business interests - a furniture manufactory. The Depression being what it was, she had to close the factory and had the building converted into an office-cum-residence. The park rangers will give you a precis of what her day was like. She was quite the productive dynamo. Her newspaper gig alone required producing (IIRC) six columns a week (perhaps 4,500 words). You could call her association with her husband a 'political partnership', but she seems to have been much more of a free agent and much more a generator of projects and ideas than Mrs. Clinton. She also took on what might have been the salient social vice of her age: caste attitudes, and she did so going about her daily business, not just making public statements. Mrs. Clinton has never stuck her neck out in that way. (Mrs. Roosevelt also did not have a history of shady deals and was not, apparently, a terror to work for).

Posted by Art Deco | January 22, 2008 1:03 AM

Extremely well said. No doubt about it.

He is poison to her and to the Dems in general.

Posted by Alex Chediak | January 22, 2008 1:03 AM

I'm guessing that Ross doesn't consider any of the Bush scandals (e.g. the way his Justice Department has become a wholly politicized arm of the GOP) is a "resignable offense".

Posted by Mike | January 22, 2008 1:25 AM

What most pundits fail to understand is that Clinton's refusal to resign is high on the list of reasons why he is still adored by the American public. Rightly or wrongly, many Americans don't seem to care much about the details of the impeachment and think that the criminalization of Clinton's behavior was absurd. What they see is a man who was publicly embarrassed by his enemies and somehow managed to persevere and then, best of all, prevail.

What the elite thought was his greatest weakness--his lack of shame (or, as you put it, the "resignable offense")--was incredibly popular with the general public. Americans don't want politicians resigning every time they're embarrased. They want people who will gut it up and stick it out. Clinton understood that.

As for Clinton's behavior losing the Democrats the 2000 election, that's just idiotic. It's cheap and conventional to say that Gore ran a bad campaign. He might have done better, but what he did was good enough. Gore won the popular vote and almost certainly convinced the majority of Floridians to vote for him. Voting logistics did him in, not strategy, personality, and certainly not Clinton. You're arguing that hey, Gore should have won even MORE states to protect against Florida, as if any politician can plan for Florida in 2000.

Mark Steyn was right. If progressives thought that their support for Clinton in the 90s would make him start to recognize unwritten rules for the first time in his life, then aren't they the dimwits.

Posted by Cal | January 22, 2008 2:45 AM

Jesus Christ. Clinton should've resigned because of a few blowjobs from Lewinsky? Kind of like Ford should've resigned for pardoning Nixon? And Carter should've resigned for stagflation? And Reagan should've resigned for Iran-Contra? And Bush I? And like Bush II should resign for a host of more egregious offenses?

This is precisely what is wrong with our politics. Everybody's majoring in the minors. Hillary's LBJ remark is race-baiting, and Huckabee's defense of the Confederate battle flag isn't.

Posted by Bill | January 22, 2008 8:53 AM

Art Deco—
What do you find particularly liberal about Justice Ginsburg’s tenure?

Ross—
I agree with your comments except insofar as you underemphasize “the depredations of Kenneth Starr”; regardless of President Clinton’s politics, it was arguably right to seek to remain in office precisely not to allow prosecutorial tactics to undermine the voters’ democratic choice in an election, tactics that involved spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars fishing for a case against the president and subjecting innocent people to vicious harassment.

Posted by jason | January 22, 2008 9:20 AM

The central fact of the '90's impeachment show was not the blow jobs, it was utterly outrageous use of the constitution for the sleaziest smear job in living memory. It was Clinton's duty to defeat what would have been a catastrophic precedent, and (based on polls from the time) a substantial majority of the people stood behind him on that. His administration certainly had its problems, but on the basic things - defeating the Republican assault on the constitution, balancing the budget, running an effective government (agencies like disaster relief) he was solid.
On every possible measure of administration performance - effectiveness, honesty, responsibility, respect for law - the Clinton administration was a golden age compared to W (admittedly a very, very low bar). People who prefer to whinge about Clinton rather than trying to solve the appalling mess that is the Bush administration aren't dealing with reality.

Posted by peter | January 22, 2008 9:49 AM

Peter, are you denying the affair with Lewinsky, the perjury, the parsing of "be"? If so, you must have been residing on another planet at the time in question. That wasn't a smear - just sordid fact. As for the balanced budget, Clinton was forced into by Gingrich. yes, he manipulated the situation effectively, but remember the dishonest compromises of DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell etc. The Clinton Presidency was better than that of Bush II, but that's hardly much of a benchmark.

Posted by aardvark liberalis | January 22, 2008 10:01 AM

The only reason the Democratic leadership should have called on Clinton to resign in 1998 would have been a simultaneous denunciation by the Republican leadership of Kenneth Starr and his partisan "investigation" which began with Whitewater and turned into a fishing expedition, culminating with a disgusting revelation of private sexual behavor by consenting adults.

Both Clinton and the GOP and its stooges behaved shamefully. Clinton has acknowledged his behavior was disgraceful. The GOP has not.

Posted by DavidC | January 22, 2008 10:09 AM

What is the appropriate punishment for a President who brazenly lies under oath?

Does the law stipulate that it is OK to lie under oath about some matters, but not about others?

Who was it who foisted the independent council statute on us?

Who was it who championed the sexual harrassment laws under which the Jones suit was brought?

Rightly or wrongly, many Americans don't seem to care much about the details of the impeachment and think that the criminalization of Clinton's behavior was absurd. What they see is a man who was publicly embarrassed by his enemies and somehow managed to persevere and then, best of all, prevail.

In what sense did he prevail? He avoided being convicted due to Arlen Specter's random recourse to Scottish Law, but it's not as if he accomplished anything between 1998 and 2000. His Vice-President lost the election to succeed him, normally a marker for the approval of a presidents term in office. And a great many people, including Democrats, are wary of a HRC presidency precisely because of the unpredictability of having Bill Clinton in the White House again.

Posted by Mike S. | January 22, 2008 10:23 AM

I think it is fundamentally obvious that Clinton is going to help Hillary secure the nomination, Obama isn't going to win a contest against BOTH of them in my opinion. He'll put up a good fight and he'll learn a lot for another run in the future, but he's going to lose if the dynamics stay the same.

But I totally disagree with the idea that Hillary Clinton will win in '08 if McCain is the nominee.

The Clintons have fundamentally hurt themseleves in the African American community.

If McCain wins, if he puts a hispanic on the ticket or an African American, he will win. He will appeal to AA voters who are conservative and are disillusioned with the democratic party, he will appeal to independents, moderate democrats, and the republicans will be united against Clinton. He will gain the evangelical vote if he puts and evangelical on the ticket.

Clinton has problems within the democratic party. It's a fact that doesn't get picked up on a lot in the media, but its there. I see it in my own small circle that is divided between Obama and Edwards and I see it in the fact that many red state democrats have come out for Obama.

So overall, Bill Clintons actions in the long term will cause a lot of pain to the democrats, yes. And a lot of people will not recognize it except in hindsight.

Posted by Rhoda | January 22, 2008 10:29 AM

I think you're deluding yourself if you really believe Democrats could have spared us all the acrimony or embarrassment. There was no way the GOP or the howler monkeys in the right wing noise machine were going to stop even if Clinton resigned. They'd have continued going after him once he left office (see the Mark Rich pardon) and would have invented some new outrage to throw against a President Gore. If anything, caving in to their ridiculous demands would have just validated impeachment-for-sport as acceptable political tactics.

There's simply nothing that the Democrats could have done to spare us all any acrimony given that Gingrich & co were intentionally trying to create as much bitterness as possible because they felt that divisiveness helped the GOP the most.

Posted by Mike T | January 22, 2008 10:52 AM

(I'd probably do exactly the same thing if my wife were running for President.)

I'm sure you would, I would as well. But I would have spoken up a lot more over other things that have been happening for the past 8 years, when Bill has remained fairly silent.

Moreover, I don't think it's so much defending his wife as defending his DLC legacy. There are plenty of chances he had to stick up for her. The veins only pop out of his face when he's sticking up for his own image.

I dunno, the argument here is kind of convincing, but Matt's probably right that this would have just enabled stronger attacks on Gore.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 22, 2008 11:30 AM

Art Deco:

Clinton the conservative:

1. Executing a mentally ill man in the middle of the 1992 campaign.
2. Selling out on single payer.
3. Selling out on gays in the military and making it worse.
4. Throwing blacks off of welfare.
5. Bombing Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan.
6. Supporting the Iraq War in 1998 and again in 2002-03.
7. Selling our China policy to the highest bidder and violating every campaign finance limitation he could.
8. Pushing free trade uber alles.
9. Signing a law adding 150 new federal death penalty offenses.
10. Strictly enforcing the crack cocaine laws and throwing huge numbers of black males into jail.
11. Opposing the right to die.
12. Opposing California's right to allow medical marijuana.
13. Tightening the embargo on Cuba.

There are a ton more examples. As I said, we liberals turned to the Clintons because we thought we couldn't win with an actual liberal. Is that true anymore?

(By the way, your examples are silly. Bill Clinton threw Elders under the bus for a perfectly correct comment-- masturbation IS safe sex. Ruth Ginsburg isn't that liberal-- ORRIN HATCH vetted her and said he could live with her because she was more conservative than other prospective candidates. And what Hillary did at the Children's Defense Fund is easily outweighed by all the conservative and anti-feminist things she did as first lady of Arkansas and the US and at the Rose Law Firm.)

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 22, 2008 1:03 PM

There's a great scene in the film "Witches of Eastwick" where the character played by Veronica Cartwright spits pits as the witches eat cherries.
The character is a shrill hysteric, maddened and bewildered because she's not getting her way.
As Obama continues to show he can take a punch, and counter-punch, I think we'll see more cherry-spitting.
Bill's value? His strategic outbursts are backfiring, as did the race-baiting and the charges linking Obama to Farrakhan (by Hannity and Richard Cohen). Bill's tantrums sound like the frustrations of a King Lear, lost without a crown. Or of an aging Albert Finney, rather menacing and ill-tempered even when he's trying to be funny.
Obama may not make it, but he's putting up a a heckuva fight.

Posted by fougasseu | January 22, 2008 1:26 PM

I see some similarities between the triangulating "third way" tactics of the Clinton era and Karl Rove's "compassionate conservatism" of today.

In the short term, the White House incumbent (and his own party) probably won by driving the opposition crazy, but in both cases their governing majority eventually crumbled due to constant scandals and increasing partisanship.

As a liberal, I naturally have far fewer problems with the Clintons. But the Dems want to govern successfully, they probably should choose somebody who does not automatically alienate half of the population. If Obama is the nominee, it ought to have a significant impact on what already seems like a divided and demoralized conservative electorate. So he seems like a valuable asset even if he turns out to be a poor campaigner against Romney or McCain, which anyway seems rather unlikely.

MARCU$

Posted by MARCU$ | January 22, 2008 1:52 PM

to add to the anecdotal evidence slightly (see e.g. Sullivan's recent post): I'm a 32 year old white southern male. I have never voted for a Republican for President or any statewide office. I defended Bill to many people in the 90s. I was enraged by Bush v. Gore, have disliked GWB from the get-go, etc. I went out and volunteered for Obama's campaign this year, the first time I've ever done political volunteer work.

Bill and Hillary have sickened me this time around. If she's nominated, the best she can hope for from me is abstention from voting. And I'd consider supporting McCain against her.

Posted by random red state liberal | January 22, 2008 1:54 PM

Art Deco—what do you find particularly liberal about Justice Ginsburg’s tenure?

Terms like 'liberal' or 'conservative' as they have been commonly used in the last fifty-odd years are conventional, referring to a nexus of public policies that do reflect underlying impulses but do not refer to an articulated system of thought. (Terms like 'Catholic', 'libertarian', 'classic liberal', 'Marxist', and 'Tory' do so refer). The woman was counsel to both NOW and the ACLU, fancies that all state regulation of the practice of abortion violates the federal constitution and has argued that the states are constitutionally required to subsidize the practice of abortion, finds the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts objectionable because boys and girls learn and socialize separately therein, has offered that the age of consent which defines statutory rape be lowered to 12 (while arguing that it is a constitutional principle that 17 year old murderers lack the capacity to be held fully responsible for their actions), &c. &c. I have not bothered to differentiate between her policy preferences and her judicial opinions (as one ought with a judge) because there is no distinction between the two bar the idiom used to express them. You can call this broad's collection of views 'liberal' or you can call it 'stickball'. What is important is that your shorthand be as robustly communicative as possible, and for that to be it has to reflect modal usage.

Posted by Art Deco | January 22, 2008 7:40 PM

"...and while Bill's decision to go the mattresses on her behalf isn't exactly admirable, it's certainly understandable. "

Yes, it's certainly understandable that he would sleep with other women, being married to that ice cold shrew.

Posted by hillary disliker | January 22, 2008 8:46 PM

Clinton the conservative:

1. Executing a mentally ill man in the middle of the 1992 campaign.

The usual accounts have it (rightly or no) that this was done as a campaign ploy. There are systematic differences between people on different points of the political spectrum as to the degree to which a deficit of intelligence (and something as amorphous as 'mental health') trump personal responsibility. However, what you are implicitly criticizing is most precisely associated with a variant of libertarianism typified by Thomas Szasz. Among those who excoriated Clinton for this was Richard John Neuhaus.

2. Selling out on single payer.

It seems awfully sectarian to insist that one be recategorized because of a dissent on a particular policy instrument, but they're your mob, not mine.

3. Selling out on gays in the military and making it worse.

I recall he acceded to prevailing opinion in the military brass and Congress, who could and did tie his hands on this issue. He had other fish to fry, as well he should.

4. Throwing blacks off of welfare.

I seem to recall that 49% of all AFDC recipients, ca 1993, were not black.

That aside, the 1996 legislation was a Republican initiative which he signed only after vetoing multiple iterations of it, and only after his superpollster Dick Morris told him his signature better be on it, or else. (One might also point out that that particular legislation has not had the ill-effects predicted).

5. Bombing Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan.

6. Supporting the Iraq War in 1998 and again in 2002-03.

You mean 'conservatives' are the only ones who favor the use of military force, ever?

7. Selling our China policy to the highest bidder and violating every campaign finance limitation he could.

Again, I think you would speak more precisely and descriptively by referring to this as 'political corruption'.

8. Pushing free trade uber alles.

The appropriate polarity with regard to trade policy would be that between 'classic liberal' and 'mercantilist'. From about 1828 through about 1982 the Democratic Party was the principal promoter of trade liberalization and, over a period of more than forty years dismantled the trade barriers Republican legislators had erected during the post-bellum period. That changed about twenty-five years ago in part because the effects of the crisis in heavy industry at that time were injurious to an important constituency group (unions) and in part because a reaction of the wonk circle in the Democratic Party and the unions to that crisis was a renewed interest in national economic planning, of which 'managed trade' was understood as a component. The benefits and injuries associated with free trade vary over economic sectors and regions. It is doubtful that they vary over social strata. Please note also that imposts are consumption taxes, and consumption taxes are not progressive.

9. Signing a law adding 150 new federal death penalty offenses.

I am fascinated with that tabulation. I have read the New York Penal Law and I could not be sure that there are even 150 crimes in toto defined therein.

That aside, when was the last time someone was executed as a consequence of a sentance issued by a federal court?

10. Strictly enforcing the crack cocaine laws and throwing huge numbers of black males into jail.

I believe about 93% of all convicts are housed in state prisons and that federal prisons typically house people who have engaged in commerce accross state lines of a sort that is legally proscribed. (I cannot say about the federal penal system, but I would point out that here in New York, 50% of all inmates are not black. The proportion of the population in New York that is black is near the national mean).

(One might also note that a fairly uncomplicated way to remain out of jail is to obey the drug laws. It will even work for black males, as a rule).

11. Opposing the right to die.

That's an issue on the state level, for the most part. Like trade policy, disputaton in that area has tended not to be coterminous with the general political spectrum, it being more a secular/libertarian cause than a social-democratic/liberal one. Wesley Smith's career in public affairs began in Ralph Nader's collection of agencies.

12. Opposing California's right to allow medical marijuana.

[Snooze].

13. Tightening the embargo on Cuba.

How so?

There are a ton more examples. As I said, we liberals turned to the Clintons because we thought we couldn't win with an actual liberal. Is that true anymore?

Between 1933 and 1969 four Democratic Presidents presided over the erection of a haphazardly conceived social democratic superstructure atop the existing set of political institutions and practices. In the course of that, the country replaced the political economy of free-enterprise with what Paul Samuelson called the 'mixed economy'. Much the same was done all over the western world, though the details differ. The principles of it were never very well articulated. For all that, I cannot figure how your jumble of policy preferences advances and refines that work (bar your reference to public health insurance). A 'liberal', as you define it is a functional pacifist who maintains a high degree of solicitude for chronic dole recipients (provided they're black?), crack-heads (provided they're black?), drug dealers (provided they're black?), foreign reds, and the Hemlock Society of ghouls. That does rather sound like a programmatic Edsel. Go for it.

(By the way, your examples are silly. Bill Clinton threw Elders under the bus for a perfectly correct comment-- masturbation IS safe sex.

Actually, she suggested masturbation be part of the school curriculum. It was the end of a considerable line of bizarre comments.

Ruth Ginsburg isn't that liberal-- ORRIN HATCH vetted her and said he could live with her because she was more conservative than other prospective candidates.

The collapse of volition on the part of the Republican Senate caucus was most distasteful. It is interesting that among the camp followers of the Democratic Party are lawyers that make that woman look circumspect.

And what Hillary did at the Children's Defense Fund is easily outweighed by all the conservative and anti-feminist things she did as first lady of Arkansas and the US and at the Rose Law Firm.)

I seem to recall that she practiced commercial and corporate law. How is that 'anti-feminist'?

Posted by Art Deco | January 22, 2008 9:01 PM

fancies that all state regulation of the practice of abortion violates the federal constitution

That's not true. Ginsburg has contended that numerous state health and safety regulations relating to abortion are constitutional.

and has argued that the states are constitutionally required to subsidize the practice of abortion

Her position has been held by a number of Supreme Court justices over the years, including some appointed by Republican Presidents.

finds the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts objectionable because boys and girls learn and socialize separately therein

This is false. She has indicated that sex segregation, in general, is very bad for society, which is a mainstream view held by many liberals, moderates, feminists, and even some conservatives.

, has offered that the age of consent which defines statutory rape be lowered to 12

That is a complete mischaracterization of her position. Next time, read the article instead of getting your information from right wing websites.

(while arguing that it is a constitutional principle that 17 year old murderers lack the capacity to be held fully responsible for their actions)

You are spinning. It is possible to hold 17 year old murderers fully responsible without executing them, which is what Ginsburg voted against. In any event, this position is settled law established by Supreme Court precedent and many moderates and conservatives agree with it.

As for the laundry list, my point was that people who hold all those positions aren't liberal. You haven't refuted that.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 23, 2008 2:50 PM

Art Deco,
The age-of-consent allegation has been shown to be misleading and most likely false. See, for instance, Prawfsblawg and Eugene Volokh.

To gauge a jurist’s philosophy by her view of one area of the law, such as regulation of sexuality, is a strange and careless approach. In her views of many other areas subject to Supreme Court review, she is a moderate. And you haven’t characterized her views of the law of sex accurately in the first place, as the links above detail.

Posted by jason | January 23, 2008 2:59 PM

That's not true. Ginsburg has contended that numerous state health and safety regulations relating to abortion are constitutional.

I think its nice the state public health apparat are permitted to regulate abortion clinics on occasion.

She has voted to invalidate statutes that prohibited the practice of partial-birth abortion, which is to say that no substantive prohibition of the procedure will pass muster with Madame Justice, no matter all the jaw in the original decision about trimesters and viability.

Her position has been held by a number of Supreme Court justices over the years, including some appointed by Republican Presidents.

I am aware that four justices advanced that notion in a 1977 minority. The idea is no more defensible if it comes from the pen of Mr. Justice Stevens than it does from the pen of Madame Justice Ginsburg. The degree to which this sort of thinking is prevalent in appellate courts is a barometer of the degree to which appellate courts are hopelessly unprofessional and intellectually corrupt when it suits them.

This is false. She has indicated that sex segregation, in general, is very bad for society, which is a mainstream view held by many liberals, moderates, feminists, and even some conservatives.

She was speaking specifically of these two organizations. Since women are not sequestered in occidental society and men and women are around each other each day for hours on end, making a complaint about a few hours a week spent in exclusively male or female company is a statement that any such association is pathological, which may be a mainstream view in and among Judge Ginsburg's professional circle, but is not elsewhere. My condolences to her husband and any sons she may have.

That is a complete mischaracterization of her position. Next time, read the article instead of getting your information from right wing websites.

She was co-author of an unpublished monograph under the title "Report of the Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project: The Legal Status of Women under the Law". She and her co-author made a specific recommendation that statutory rape in jurisdictions covered by the federal criminal code be redifined, with the age of consent lowered from 16 to 12. See pages 69-71 and p. 76 of the report.

It is possible to hold 17 year old murderers fully responsible without executing them, which is what Ginsburg voted against. In any event, this position is settled law established by Supreme Court precedent and many moderates and conservatives agree with it.

If you insist on a blanket dispensation due to the defendant's age, you are concluding that you cannot hold him culpable to the same degree as you do an older defendant, without regard to the individual characteristics of the defendants in question. (And who granted her the authority to trump the elected legislator's judgments as to the age at which full responsibility ought be assumed?)

As for the laundry list, my point was that people who hold all those positions aren't liberal. You haven't refuted that.

I was stupid to get sucked into a discussion like this. "Liberal" and "conservative" in common usage in this country at this time are shorthands, indicating a probabalistic assessment of what the bearer will or will not advocate at any given time. You can attempt to divine an underlying force or logic in the sort of political spats that occur and therefore attempt to construct a taxonomy with reference to this exterior standard. You could also attempt a 'sociological' approach and assess what sort of ideas tend to cluster together among political actors and where an individual politician or journalist dissents. Assessing B. Clinton in ideological terms seems to me not worth the effort, but perhaps I am being uncharitable about the man.

As far as I could see, your laundry list consisted of three sorts of items: ones of dubious factuality, ones concerning his expedient adjustments to his political environment, and ones concerning issues on which there is no settled orthodoxy within the Democratic Party from which to dissent. I take it you are dissatisfied with the man. However, the appellation 'conservative' suggests any number of things about him which do not apply, among them that in his career that he advances the interests or ethos of the military, the evangelical churches, and the business sectors against their various adversaries; that he is skeptical of the self-understanding and social role of the intelligentsia; that he is antagonistic to public employee unions; that he is concerned with the usurpation by the state of various and sundry social formations; that he is more skeptical than the median of the state's capacity to intelligently allocate resources; that he favors the modal vernacular culture over dissenting subcultures; and that he brings camp followers with him who share these inclinations. That does not sound like B. Clinton to me.

To gauge a jurist’s philosophy by her view of one area of the law, such as regulation of sexuality, is a strange and careless approach.

I am inclined to believe that the philosophy adhered to by Judge Ginsburg in the performance of her daily labors is "push the button that works". She is, after all, a lawyer. That aside, a full and honest articulation of the political theory implicit in arbitrary judicial review is something I do not expect to live to see.

Posted by Art Deco | January 24, 2008 7:21 PM