Deconstructing Clinton envy

There remains in the media a love for the Clinton years that should be belied by the facts. Yes, the economy was doing far better then than it is now, but much of its greatness was based on the acceleration of a shift to a financial services economy that was impossible to sustain.

Clinton’s policies — deregulation of the financial industry, including the demolition of the commercial/investment bank wall — created a financial free-for-all that sent Wall Street on a gambling spree that first blew up the tech bubble and, when it finally popped, turned to the housing market, which went crazy and then collapsed.

The destruction of the American economy, which had been years in the making, was a bipartisan effort. But this history, as Dean Baker pointed out yesterday in a post on Clinton’s new book, seems to have been forgotten. Here is Baker’s take:

Clinton promoted both the growth of the stock bubble and the over-valuation of the dollar. The latter came about when his administration organized the “saving” of East Asia following its financial crisis in 1997. The harsh terms of the bailout required the countries of the region to run huge trade surpluses in order to meet their payments. This meant raising the value of the dollar against their own currencies.

Other developing countries wanted to avoid ever being in this situation so they too began to accumulate reserves at a huge pace after 1997 by keeping down the value of their own currencies against the dollar. This led to the huge run-up in the dollar and therefore the large trade deficit that we saw in the last decade and continue to see today.

The demand gap created by the trade deficit was filled by the housing bubble in the last decade. With the bubble now burst it can only be filled by government budget deficits until the dollar falls enough to bring trade closer to balance. Given the enormous disaster that resulted from his economic mismanagement (which could have been reversed had anyone in the Bush administration been awake), it is highly ironic that President Clinton would write a book offering economic advice to the nation.

Ironic, perhaps, but typical. War hawks, so wrong about Iraq, remain the dominant voices in the foreign policy debate, so why should we expect the mainstream media to listen to critics of the capitalist system or banish the men (and yes, it was primarily men) who tanked the economy.

  • Send me an e-mail.
  • Read poetry at The Subterranean.
  • Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
  • Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Obama, Clinton and the future

David Sirota comments on something that I think is going to become an issue come January — something that ties into the concerns I raised yesterday about Barack Obama and progressivism.

Basically, Sirota raised concerns about Bill Clinton’s potential impact on an Obama presidency, given some comments that Clinton made yesterday that had Fox and some conservatives talking about Obama as offering a third Clinton term. (I’m not sure that Clinton was implying that, but impressions are everything in politics.)

Sirota, who spoke on Fox about the Clinton speech, rightly concludes that “Clinton’s entire narrative is the starting gun of what will be a very intense effort by the larger pool of Clintonites to infiltrate an Obama administration.” That, were it to happen, it would undercut Obama’s argument of change and populist economics.

If we can step back and look honestly at the economic situation, then we have to admit (as I admitted on Fox) that Clinton officials had a hand in the key deregulatory policies that led to the financial meltdown, and the key free-market fundamentalist policies (rigged trade deals, corporate tax loopholes, etc.) that are hollowing out the economy. These same people are now going to try to use an Obama presidency to reassume the posts they had in a Clinton administration. And the fact that, according to Bill Clinton, Obama is already potentially letting them – well, that’s really disturbing (if unsurprising).

The hope is with a big enough election mandate, Obama will feel more empowered to sweep out the Clintonites and start fresh – both in terms of personnel, and in terms of ideology. Because if he doesn’t, not only could it stunt his policy agenda, it could also create political problems for him. The media – and especially outlets like Fox News – are going to be looking for weak points that allow them to tar and feather an Obama presidency as just “more of the same.”

Obama, in winning the primaries and potentially the general electon, will have taken control of the Democratic Party — and, by extension, will have relegated Bill Clinton to the history books.

But , as I wrote yesterday, there is a tension apparent in Obama’s political makeup that has him shifting between the progressive/liberal and Clinton wings of the party. Which is why, as I wrote yesterday and as Sirota writes today

it’s important for progressives to start laying down markers about what we should and should not cheer on – what we should and should not expect from an Obama adminstration. In my opinion, it doesn’t help Obama win the election, nor will it help his administration, to be painted as a mere second act for the last Democratic administration.

Making the Obama presidency the third term of Bill Clinton’s presidency is both substantively inappropriate to the times, and politically dangerous/tone deaf. I hope that’s not the path a President Obama takes, should he win the White House.

And it’s a path we shouldn’t allow him to take.