Clinton's Contract with America
dhenwood at panix.com
Sat May 25 11:09:45 MDT 1996
At 7:23 AM 5/25/96, Nathan Newman wrote:
>Leninist, social democrat, Stalinist, Trot--
>For those of us (thankfully) too young for the ancient New Left age of
>splinters, division and sectarian name-calling, let's get off the
>simplistic name-calling as a mode of analysis.
And let's get off the simplistic generational name-calling as a mode of
Classifications are not all useless; I thought your long apology for
Clinton was a picture-perfect example of social democratic self-delusion.
Clinton is the president of the bond market and free trade. Other than his
dedication to the expansion of rentier and corporate wealth, he stands for
>Clinton's not a socialist. In past primaries, I voted for Jesse Jackson
>and would enthusiastically support someone more radical, but if the real
>choice is Clinton versus Dole, the choice isn't even close. It's the
>thrid party fundamentalists who delude themselves with ideology and ignore
>the real consequences for the working class and oppressed groups if Dole
>managed to take the Presidency. Whether you like it or not, Clinton's
>veto has been all that stood between our country and the repeal of large
>chunks of the New Deal (from social welfare to labor law).
None of that was repealed when Reagan was president. One reason why,
perhaps, is that with a Republican in the White House, the Dems in Congress
are pushed marginally to the left. With a "Democrat" in the White House,
any outrage gets through. Do you think Bush could have gotten Nafta through
a Dem-controlled Congress? And why do you think the Reps won in 1994, if it
wasn't in part a reaction against Clinton's betrayals and failures?
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
email: <dhenwood at panix.com>
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism