Should I Have Voted for Clinton in 1992?
I mentioned in a previous post
that I now think, ex post, that
1992, I should have abandoned
sentiment and caution, and voted for Perot or Clinton instead of Bush the First.
This, of course, requires explanation.
Bush the First was an excellent
president, whereas Clinton was a joke, and Perot might have been even more out
of place as president. We'll put aside the Perot hypothetical and focus on
Clinton. If the Russians had still been threatening, it would have been too
dangerous to have Clinton as president but the Cold War was over, and foreign
policy was not so important. We did have the purchase of the U.N. by Saddam
Hussein's Oil for Food program, the neglect that gave rise to 9-11, Clinton's
blockage of U.N. action to stop the Rwanda genocide, and the absurd Kosovo War,
where we helped Albanian drugrunners by bombing Yugoslav civilian targets, but
none of these things turned out to be as disastrous as, say, a Soviet conquest
On the plus side, the domestic results of Clinton's ineptitude were good, at
least in his first term. Bush Senior and Junior each have at least one very
bad social program to their debit-- the Americans with Disabilities Act, which
unconstitutionally forces huge wasteful expenditures on very large bathrooms and
empty-by-law parking spaces, and the presription drug medicare program, which
will result in huge spending on behalf of the wealthiest age group in America
and probably will result, indirectly, in price controls on drugs and the
crippling of the most impressive sector of the health care industry. Clinton
found himself unable to do any such damage. He did repeal some of the Reagan tax
cuts, but that is a smaller matter.
Administratively, it took a long time for Clinton to fill his appointive
positions, even with a Democratic Congress. It is now pretty much forgotten, and
perhaps wasn't noticed much even in 1993, but the Clinton Administration was
very slow off the starting block. It just couldn't get organized for a year or
two, just as one might expect of a bunch of Arkansas politicians who cared more
about elections than actually running things.
Finally, and most important, Clinton ended the dominance that the Democrats had
had over Congress since the 1950's. This was all the more important because
from perhaps 1950 to 1974, there existed many conservative Southern Democrats
and Northern Cold War Democrats, but by 1988, almost all of them were gone, so
Congress was truly controlled by people who were staunch liberals on all issues.
Clinton, by a mixture of incompetence and selfishness, ended this. (Note, too,
as a footnote, NAFTA and welfare reform, both bad politically for the Democrats
but good for Clinton).
To be sure, Clinton's contribution towards good government were largely
completed by 1996, so Dole would probably have been better for the 1996-2000
term. But even there, recall that Dole was a major supporter of the American for
Foreign policy is more important these days. That means that we had better
keep Bush in office despite his poor domestic record. But the wise Democrat, if
he cares more about policies than about who carries them out, probably should
vote for Bush on account of his domestic policies too. Kerry would probably end
up like Clinton in his second term, less beset by scandal, but unable to get
much done with a Republican Congress.
I think there's a Capitol Hill-White House dynamic at work here which interacts with the Democrat-Republican dynamic. In general, the White House is the branch of govt. that takes the initiative and gets the credit for new domestic programs. The same is true of the Democrats. Combine these two, and the most hostile environment for big new domestic initiatives is a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling the Capitol.
Break it down:
1) With Democrats controlling both branches, the Democratic president wants new programs, and the Democratic Congress wants to support the president of its party and also share the Democratic credit for new programs.
2) With a Republican president and a Democratic Congress, the White House still wants some big new initiative (being a president counteracts to some degree being a Republican), while the Democrats in Congress are weakened in their resistance to these programs (being Democrats and hence in favor of new initiatives, weakens their partisan hostility to initiatives from a Republican president).
3) With both branches in the hands of Republicans, again the Republican president will to some degree want big new domestic initiatives, and the Republican Congress will, while generally skeptical, not want to defeat a president of its own party.
But with 4) a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress, the president is doubly eager for new initiatives (being both president and a Democrat), but the Congress is triply oriented to stopping him: 1) it's Congress, 2) it's Republican, and 3) its trying to defeat a partisan rival in the White House. Outcome? Gridlock, no new programs, budget surpluses, strong economy.
Which is why a Dole presidency in 1996 probably would have resulted in some kind of health care/prescription drugs/whatever big new expensive initiative that would have sucked the surplus dry four years before Bush's did.
7316 http://www.caribbean-poker-web.com very fun
3708 http://www.texas-hold-em-i.com play texas hold em online here.
texas hold em
2342 http://video-poker.uni.cccheck it out! Video Poker yabba dabba doo
online Video Poker
7142 You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan. Dental
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new dental insurance
Get yours at: http://dental-insurance-plan.freeservers.com/
online sports betting
Sports Betting Odds
Sports Betting Line
Football Sports Betting
NCAA Sports Betting
NFL Football Betting Line
American Football Betting
Online American Football Betting
Online Football Betting Lines
Online Sports Book
NFL Football Odds
NCAA Football Odds
Las Vegas Football Odds
2004 Super Bowl Odds
Sports Book Betting
Las Vegas Sports Book
Sports Book Odds
Internet Sports Gambling
Sports Betting Information
College Football Betting Odds
College Betting Line
NFL Point Spread
NCAA Point Spread
Super Bowl Point Spread
Vegas Point Spread
Legal Sports Betting
Online Betting Odds
Online Sports Book Betting
Online Sports Betting Site
home based business
home based business