|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: A BILL CLINTON CABINET MEMBER SAYS WHY HE BACKS OBAMA |
 |
|
Prospect, an online news magazine with some terrific, intelligent news commentary, recently published this article by Robert Reich, a former Cabinet member in the Clinton Administration:
| Quote: |
Almost 40 years ago, Bill Clinton and I sailed across the Atlantic to take up residence as students at Oxford University. I recall only two things from that voyage. The first was becoming seasick and retiring to my small cabin. This was followed a few hours later by a knock on my door and the appearance of a lanky southerner bearing chicken soup. Bill Clinton didn't say, "I feel your pain"�that phrase came years later on the campaign trail�but I was nonetheless touched by his empathy and generosity. Despite my queasy stomach, we talked long into the night, mostly about what had happened to America.
Both of us had been politically active, but now looked forward to putting an ocean between us and the disappointments that marked America in 1968. Two months earlier, Chicago had been the scene of a riotous Democratic convention, during which numbers of young people who had been lured into politics by Eugene McCarthy's antiwar campaign and then Robert Kennedy's rousing call for social change were beaten by the police. By the time of our voyage, Robert Kennedy had been assassinated, McCarthy's bid had flopped, the Democrats were in the process of nominating Hubert Humphrey and the Republicans Richard Nixon. The Vietnam war continued unabated. Several American cities were in flames.
My other recollection from that crossing was finding Bobby Baker on board. His decision to travel to England at this time, on this particular ship, seemed a cruel joke�suggesting there was no real escape. (Baker had been a crony of Lyndon Johnson until Robert Kennedy, as attorney general, had exposed his alleged deals with organised crime, forcing him to resign.)
Why do I trouble you with these reminiscences? Because the upheavals of 1968 splintered the Democratic party and marked the beginning of the rise of a new Republican majority�and the subsequent rise of the neocons on foreign policy, supply-side tax cutters on the economy and evangelical Christians on social policy. The Democratic establishment drifted into the comforting somnolence of a seemingly solid majority in congress, losing touch with the white working class that had been at the core of the New Deal coalition. The left all but abandoned politics�some vanishing into the hills to find spiritual enlightenment; the more academic disappearing into hermeneutics and deconstructionism; blacks, gays and women losing themselves in "identity" politics; and the few who remained (including Bill and me) supporting George McGovern in his disastrous run for president in 1972. Since then, it's been basically right-wing politics�Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and the two Bushes. And, oh yes, my old friend's administration, of which I am proud to have been a member (as labour secretary). But Bill did not move the Democrats or the nation left. He moved the Democrats to the right and kept the nation essentially where it was.
Are we approaching another turning point, like 1968�but one that reverses the great pendulum of American politics and moves the nation left? The George W Bush presidency has been such an abject failure�only 30 per cent of Americans approve of the job he has done�that the country may be ready. The economy is heading towards a recession, or worse. Inequality of income and wealth are wider than they've been in a century.
Add to this the fact that Americans are not�perhaps never were�as right-wing as their Republican leaders claim. According to polls, most Americans now believe the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to be unfair; most think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that America should pull out; most say they are willing to pay more taxes to improve inner-city schools; most support more regulation of business in order to improve the environment; a majority thinks homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal and that abortion should be left up to women and their doctors; the vast majority believe large corporations have too much power in Washington; and most support restrictions on lobbying and financing political campaigns.
But is all this enough to augur a move to the left in American politics? Don't count on it. John McCain, the presumptive Republican standard-bearer, has a fair shot. Although he is not a part of the Republican establishment�he supports reform of the immigration laws, initially opposed Bush's tax cuts and doesn't kowtow to the evangelical right�make no mistake: McCain is a right-winger.
What of the Democrats? John Edwards, the most left-leaning of the three major candidates, and the only one who consistently emphasised the widening income gap and the worsening plight of America's poor, has been forced out. Of the two who remain, Hillary Clinton is no leftist. As a senator, she voted in favour of Bush's Iraq war resolution in 2002, and, more recently, in favour of certifying Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation. She wants universal healthcare, but won't support a "single-payer" plan like Britain's NHS, which is the best way to control medical costs. She won't commit to raising taxes on the rich to finance social programmes, except for rolling back the Bush tax cuts. She won't even pay the large, looming cost of the baby boomers' social security by raising the portion of income subject to social security taxes.
Obama at least has the courage to demand that the rich pay more for social security, but his health plan is no more radical than Clinton's. He talks more openly than she does about the need to reduce inequality, but has not been specific about whether or to what extent he'd raise taxes on the very wealthy to pay for social programmes, beyond reversing Bush's tax cuts. He was against Iraq from the start, but so far has avoided much detail about how and when he'd extract US troops.
Yet "Obamania" has almost nothing to do with specific policies. It is rather Obama's almost pitch-perfect echo of the John F Kennedy we heard in 1960 and the Robert Kennedy last heard in 1968. It is a call for national unity and sacrifice�not in the interest of military prowess but in the cause of social justice, both in the nation and around the world. His appeal is for more civic engagement, not necessarily more government. He has the voice and wields the techniques of the community organiser he once was in Chicago, asking people to join together. Not since 1968 has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals.
It is easy to write off Obamania as another bout of that naive enthralment that occasionally claims US voters. Perhaps it is. This is what Hillary Clinton and my friend from 40 years ago are counting on. But if the Clintons could stop to think back to what they felt and understood then, they might come to a different conclusion, as have I.
To see the enthusiasm for Obama as a potential turn to the "left" does not describe what is occurring. He is not promising and will not deliver European levels of welfare and tax. But the US does seem ready to start a new political chapter. The nation wants to be inspired again, as it was 40 years ago. Recall that neither JFK nor his brother were leftists. They were realists, but also idealists. They understood that nothing good happens in Washington unless the public is mobilised to make it happen. For purposes of practical electoral strategy as well as high-minded moral aspiration, they never tired of reminding the nation of its founding principles�above all, that all men are created equal. |
I think Reich, no slouch on the couch, has nailed it (albeit only in the last part of his assessment and if you overlook the sappy last phrase). Obama can't be written off as just a political fad, as a left-winger, as so many die-hard Clinton backers want the electorate to believe.
Do you agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think most of us would like to believe that he is not a fad.
I think it is going to take people losing their homes, out on the streets in the millions, and no sign of hope, for Americans to do what needs to be done in Washington.
Obama's silky words are not going to reprogram the system. Only the will of the people will do that, and most Americans still bleed red white and blue, believing in the American dream.
As I think one of the founding fathers said, a good democracy needs a revolution every 50 years or so to clean out the rot. I'd say it's long overdue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
I think most of us would like to believe that he is not a fad.
I think it is going to take people losing their homes, out on the streets in the millions, and no sign of hope, for Americans to do what needs to be done in Washington.
Obama's silky words are not going to reprogram the system. Only the will of the people will do that, and most Americans still bleed red white and blue, believing in the American dream.
As I think one of the founding fathers said, a good democracy needs a revolution every 50 years or so to clean out the rot. I'd say it's long overdue. |
Well, if you ask my opinion, in the old days workers were stepped on and treated like garbage which includes the great-grandparents of people on this board. The reforms brought in some government intervention and progressive policies. You later had the New Deal which was influenced by a Canadian born economist (Galbraith), and a British lord named John Maynard Keynes who believed capitalism had to be saved, as I understand it, with some policies that were human, perhaps left-leaning in the eyes of some in order to keep the countries from having major revolutions.
In the past few decades as Reich mentioned, things have moved to the right. Wages have not kept hardly with inflation, people are struggling, homes are being foreclosed in large numbers, the government over the years has helped banks, bailed out all kinds of business, and then makes it impossible for struggling consumers to declare bankruptcy. Basically, they have been fighting against the working class and middle class. I wouldn't put faith in Obama being a new Roosevelt or Kennedy, but I have less faith in Hillary Clinton in terms of being progressive and caring for the middle class. She hasn't struggled in the same way Barrak Obama did.
Good topic... I like Reich... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: A BILL CLINTON CABINET MEMBER SAYS WHY HE BACKS OBAMA |
|
|
Great article and I am so glad you put your thread title IN CAPS. I may HAVE MISSED IT if you hadn't.
It was a good early morning read and I suppose a reference to comments of our founding fathers could be considered sappy but what was more noteworthy in my opinion was Reich's use of British English, clearly something he picked up in his Oxford days.
Clinton has an interesting past and I remember Reich and he is also an interesting man to read or listen to.
Good to hear from you Steve. Is this your coming out story after the beating you took on the egg story?
Since I would probably take a hit anyway regarding Dealy Plaza from you Steve I am going to make a pre-emptive strike and mention that Bobby Baker is connected to Johnson and JFK�s assassination. Baker benefited from JFK's demise and the installation of the more friendly Johnson administration. Baker cronies� fingerprints were in the snipers� nest, although Oswald�s were not. For the skeptics; there was a 34 POINT match on Malcom Wallace's print- - more than enough to prove he was there.
http://www.myjfkspace.com/
Although it seems that he only delayed his criminal charges by a few years by getting rid of Kennedy- - Good job Bobby.
You did do something to avenge your brother�s death.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4332&st=0&start=0
Last edited by regicide on Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:59 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: Re: A BILL CLINTON CABINET MEMBER SAYS WHY HE BACKS OBAMA |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| Great article and I am so glad you put your thread title IN CAPS. I may HAVE MISSED IT if you hadn't. |
Oh come on..how could anyone miss a Steve thread? 
Seriously though, nice article Steve. There a plenty of good reasons to support Obama and the article hits on some of those.
Mr. Reich better watch out though, he's got a target on his back and you know who's firing the gun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robert Reich wrote: |
| Yet "Obamania" has almost nothing to do with specific policies. It is rather Obama's almost pitch-perfect echo of the John F Kennedy we heard in 1960 and the Robert Kennedy last heard in 1968. |
Bingo, Robert!
Yes, and JFK was an awful, awful President. He hadn't the experience or good sense to conduct world affairs remotely well. Thankfully, I think Obama has a better head on his shoulders, but there are some valid parallels.
And Robert Reich is right, Obama and Clinton are not easily distinguished by policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually if you go to Obama's website there is plenty on policy. Then again, why would you want to do that, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
| Actually if you go to Obama's website there is plenty on policy. Then again, why would you want to do that, right? |
Huh?
I've done that. That's why I say Hillary and Obama are hardly distinguished by policy. In other words, they're very similar on policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khenan
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| As I think one of the founding fathers said, a good democracy needs a revolution every 50 years or so to clean out the rot. I'd say it's long overdue. |
You refer to Thomas Jefferson, who favored the creation of a merit-based oligarchy over the quasi-democracy we were ultimately given.
| ThomasJefferson wrote: |
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.
|
That's my boy  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Were it not for the limit on the number of characters allowed in a subject heading, I expect Steve's heading would've said, "ANOTHER BILL CLINTON CABINET MEMBER SAYS WHY HE BACKS OBAMA"
After all there is Bill Richardson as well as Robert Reich now. Any others, Kuros?
But I'm sure Steve will correct me if I'm wrong about that, fuzzy-thinking, left-wing liberal (nay, radical) that I am.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros exclaimed:
| Quote: |
Bingo, Robert!
Yes, and JFK was an awful, awful President. He hadn't the experience or good sense to conduct world affairs remotely well. Thankfully, I think Obama has a better head on his shoulders, but there are some valid parallels.
And Robert Reich is right, Obama and Clinton are not easily distinguished by policy. |
Uh, are you proud of being obtuse, or what? First you tell us that you believe Reich hit the mark and then proceed to chastise the Kennedy Administration. Read the article again; Reich is praising Kennedy for being a realist but only when idealism wouldn't work. He believes Obama might very well offer the same qualities of leadership.
Kennedy was taken to task by Kruschev at the Vienna Summit in 1961 but the former had a quick learning curve and was ready for the latter's theatrics in the Cuban missile crisis the next year. Doubt that anyone else in either party would have handled the Soviets as deftly from that point onward.
When you're taking a break from needling MilwaukieDave, perhaps you can inform us of the difference between a "valid parallel" and an "invalid" one? I'm all eyes.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
| Actually if you go to Obama's website there is plenty on policy. Then again, why would you want to do that, right? |
Huh?
I've done that. That's why I say Hillary and Obama are hardly distinguished by policy. In other words, they're very similar on policy. |
They're quite different on special interest lobbys, and that really counts with me and a lot of people too. Obama plans to clean up Washington, Hillary plans to conduct business as usual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As I think one of the founding fathers said, a good democracy needs a revolution every 50 years or so to clean out the rot. I'd say it's long overdue. |
This is from the founding father that thought the French Revolution was a good thing. While some of it wasn't bad, the assembly line guillotine was not a good deal, although I wish Napoleon had beat the English and spared us the rest of the 19th Century and the horrors of the 20th.
You however are speaking from the position of defending States Rights in defense of slavery.
Defend away, blase! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
Were it not for the limit on the number of characters allowed in a subject heading, I expect Steve's heading would've said, "ANOTHER BILL CLINTON CABINET MEMBER SAYS WHY HE BACKS OBAMA"
After all there is Bill Richardson as well as Robert Reich now. Any others, Kuros?
|
I don't understand why Clinton Cabinet members shouldn't support Obama. After all, Hillary Clinton didn't run that administration. Bill did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I don't understand why Clinton Cabinet members shouldn't support Obama. After all, Hillary Clinton didn't run that administration. Bill did. |
Careful, Kuros. She might hear you. And rumor has it she doesn't have a great sense of humor.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
