Did Clinton and timid democrats help push America to the right?

[Gothic Sponge]

In the last 10 years everyone that i've met that seems conservative to me has called themselves moderates. It's become a tug of war in America and the middle of the rope is on the conservative side. As much as i liked Clinton, he was not a liberal. Many times i felt he was pandering to the right-wing. IMO he was for lack of a better word a conservative democrat. Because of Clinton's ideology i wonder if he may have played a part in skewing the line between right-wing and left-wing. I know it's mostly the non-cons and their constant crying that played the biggest part in the shift, but does Clinton and some timid democrats share the blame? I'm just trying to retrace how we got here...

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

1. Aging Babyboomers?

Funny, the older I get, the less I'm comfortable with change, especially what appears to be radical change... but I'm still kinda left of center.

If it holds true for the population wouldn't a natural shift occur?

[Gothic Sponge]

6. Good point

[blindpig]

8. I don't buy it

the older I get and the worse things become the more drastic are my solutions. At this rate by 80 I'll be calling Noam Chomsky a facsist and advocating mass suicide!

[Nay]

9. That's me, too, blindpig. The older I get, the more I want

to break things and start over. No halfway measures. I guess when I was younger, I thought just tinkering with things (and people) would fix everything. Now I don't.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

10. I don't spend much for it myself

Actually, the hijacking of the GOP by the religious right (is Ralph Reed still part of BushCo?) ... just isn't right.

It would be nice if a new true conservative-of-old political party would come about and the GOP would either find their way or sink into the Roy Moore theocracy wannabe vocal minority.

[Bridget Burke]

2. No.

The "tug-of-war" is a good comparison. The neocons & religious right have pulled mightily to the right. Clinton & others had to work hard to avoid being pulled into the abyss--forget real leftward progress.

What about those farther left who've stayed above the fray? They critique very well & point out that Gore & Bush are just alike, but refrain from actually taking part. They might actually have to work with those who are not ideologically pure.

Which side are you on?

[Cocoa]

3. Republicans won the three elections previous to him

The country was pretty conservative when Clinton took office.

[seabeyond]

4. yes

for me this is an obvious. but then in a flash i think well no not really. it had started before clinton. clinton was able to puch it over the edge with his personal behavior. again that wouldnt have presented itself as an issue if there hadnt been an 8 year investigation on him either which totally comes from the hating repugs. so...........

i will ultimately put it on the shoulders of repugs, and the sheep mentality of the people not being able to get beyond clintons poor personal behavior and didnt see the manipulation and abuse of the constitution. the greatere crime

[genius]

5. Absolutely. Now the Democratic leadership is to the right of Nixon.

but the members of the Party are still liberals.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Not all of the rank and file are. Lots and lots of centrists around.

[topherX]

7. Many factors contribute to politics skewing to the right.

There's no simple answer to your question. Many factors contribute to politics skewing to the right. These factors include present and post politicians, the media, religion, and public opinion on key issues.

Did Clinton and middle of the road democrats help this shift? Yes, they set the climate to some degree. Clinton's administration pushed certain issues and ignored others. I supposed he acted that way because that's what many of his supporters wanted. In some ways I appreciate that Clinton did his best to work with a republican based congress. That's no easy feat.

Media further pushed politics to the right. After Reagan deregulation of the media, we lost a degree of balanced news. News agencies enjoyed less regulation. They could push news that would that would serve in their best interest. I would image that many papers get sold when a war is being covered. I still haven't figured out why Hannity and Limbaugh are so popular.

Another irony of many media outlets is that they spent considerable ink trying to destroy Clinton and indirectly the democratic party. I heard much more about Lewinsky and other supposed scandals than I did about Clinton's policies. It didn't seem to matter much whether the policy of liberal or conservative.

In the 90's I also saw a big rise in religion's role in politics. Here was a new, unified force that could help push a certain public agenda. Fundamentalism became closely mixed with the conservative agenda. Religious leaders got a new voice on TV. Many conservative politicians got in to office with their roots based in the religious right.

Where does public opinion play a role? I think that public opinion varies as much as it ever did. Unfortunately, the media may emphasize one school of thought and ignore the other. Public opinion also seems to travel up and down like a yo-yo. After many years of progression, some people will react and go the other way. They might say, "Hold on, our nation is changing too fast. I want to return to return to simpler days." Hence conservatism takes hold.

My hope is that the tide will turn again soon to progressive politics, whether we progress slowly at first and the build steam or we do it all at once. We must educate ourselves and our friends. We have much to gain by electing Kerry and furthering the democratic cause.

It sounds like I'm running for office. =)

[keithyboy]

11. NO!!! Regan pushed the US to the right with his "welfare queen" and

anti-crime rehtoric. He did little or nothing about welfare, crime, drugs, or AIDS. But he came into office using the code words of racism and white supremacy and anti-affrimative action. By the time Clinton took office he was hated for just being not hateful. For trying to heal the nation, for trying to deal with people from a position of understanding and respect. He really thought his welfare reforms would not only help the people stuck on welfare but would do much to heal the Congressional incivility thrown his way. He did things that conservatives could only dream of having someone do: balance the budget, reform welfare (although he recognized that without the changes he wanted to the bill, some people were going to be hurt initially), reduced Federal employment rolls and Executive Branch spending, cut out military waste and obsolete systems while increasing pay and benefits for uniformed soldiers (eventhough they hated him too), put more uniformed police on the streets and cut crime more than his three predecessors combined, (actually he was faulted for having so many people jailed during his administration but most of that resulted from state laws and Congressional actions that were mostly out of his hands.) Besides the Lewinsky scandal I think the most stupid thing Clinton did was to bring Dick Morris on. It was down hill from then on. Clinton was just too trusting of those around him, some of whom worked hard to do him in.

[sangh0]

13. Liberal Democrats and the looney left pushed America to the right

Burning bras, Symbionese Liberation Army, Black Panthers, "if it feels good do it", Flower Power, and latent bigotry moved this nation to the right.

[tom_paine]

16. While you may be correct about those Liberal Excesses

it is over-simplistic to think that they were the sole cause, or even a major cause.

To lay the Symbionese Liberation Army at the feet of the Democrats is like the Busheviks trying to lay Ted Kaszinszcki there, as well.

Ever read his manifesto (I did, because after listening to Busheviks call him a liberal, I had to find out for myself)? Well, he FUCKING HATED LIBERALS, perhaps even more than he hated the Right-Wing. No, scratch that. DEFINITELY more than he hated the Right-Wing.

My point is that you CANNOT lay crazies at the doorstep of either party.

There are Liberal Excesses and there are Conservative Excesses (there are Totalitarian Excesses, too, but since Amerika's Totalitarianism is so young and unfomed, people haven't really felt them).

The reason is more, sangh0, IMHO. Very much more than the excessess of the entremes that have been with us always.

[Q]

17. Wow. SangO has another opportunity to write 'looney left'...

...and insult anyone to the left of ... Lieberman.

- But what the hell does...burning bras, and the Black Panthers have to do with Clinton OR the Democratic party? And your tirade about 'if it feels good do it' comes right out of the 'Reagan Revolution' playbook. I'm surprised you forgot to add 'welfare queens'.

- I don't believe the 'country' has moved anywhere...especially to the right. After the Republican party was taken over by extreme right wing fanatics and the American media became just another corporation controlled by ideologues...'perception management' was used to give the illusion the country was more 'conservative'.

- And then...what happened to the Republcian party happened to the Dems. THEIR party was hijacked by another bunch of conservatives who began doing to the party what the RWing zealots did to the GOP: usurp their agenda and replace it with the wishes of their corporate masters.

[msmcghee]

19. Say what?

The SLA and Black Panthers were not part of the left - they were revolutionaries fighting against real oppression of blacks in this country. Whether their methods were right or wrong - it had little to do with the anti-war left - although the RW would certainly like you to think we were all part of the same thing.

Burning bras was women realizing that they could define their own lives rather than accept the limited roles that a male dominated society allowed them.

"If it feels good, do it" was the rejection of a hypocritical theocratic morality. It wasn't as hedonistic as the RW tries to claim. It simply said that things like sex, rock and roll and smoking pot were not automatically bad. They were right then - and still are, now.

Latent bigotry? I have no idea what you're talkning about but it had nothing to do with the left that I saw. I was there. Were you?

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Liberal Dems have nothing to do with the Simbionese liberation

army. What utter crap. You sound like Phylis Shafly or Pat Robertson.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. I hope people hit alert on blaming dems for the Symbionese

Liberation Army. I sure did.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. burning bras moved the country to the right?

It was all fault of people who wanted to free their boobs? D'OH!

[Az]

14. Things have changed

It used to be that the parties were the bearers of the ideals. They championed them and brought them to the people. But the right and times changed that equation. Because the Neocons and the right saw real potential for the destruction of the republican party after Nixon they set about creating a machine that would carry the message to the people. They coopted the media and began trumpeting their ideals into the public.

The ideas became the ground in which the republican party would find its new voters. The left did nothing comparitive. Thus the republicans were able to find a wealth of voters willing to side with them while the democrats had to go hunting in the center for scraps.

Politicians have to follow votes. They can only work with what is within the publics awareness. Without champions bringing ideas before the people from the left all they have is the right shouting their ideals.

Our expectations seem to be set on the old way the left established power. Strong leaders with strong liberal ideas. But now things have changed. We have to create our own voice and can no longer expect politicians to do it for us.

[Hubert Flottz]

15. Yup!

RIGHT into the "New World Order"!

[KoKo]

18. When Conason/Lyons "Hunting of the President" comes out then we can

discuss what happened to Clinton. His record is being abused and used by the Freep Repugs so that even folks here on DU don't know what the hell he stood for.

He could have done "wonders" without "Mellon/Scaife" and anyone who doesn't know that "Monica" was a "Plant," at this point needs to Google CIA Psy Op's Operations.

But, Clinton had a certain weakness is true...but that the Repugs drove him to "Monica Plant" hasn't been explored even by the DU "tinfoilhatters."

The "TRUTH" about the Clinton Presidency awaits what happens to the Chimp.

BUT...I will NEVER FORGIVE CLINTON...for the "giveaway" of our "airwaves" which has led us to this nightmare we have been living in.

What drove Clinton to compromise on some really HUGE issue like NAFTA and FCC Deregulation? Do we even need to ask this when we are forced to suppor an ABB Candidate like Kerry...where we have to cough back "fur balls" because he's "compromising himself away to WIN," just like Clinton had to "compromise to the RIGHT" to remain a President for TWO TERMS to try to forstall what we have seen Bush dismantle.

Clinton's Presidency is so complicated we need to wait for the Historians.. But, he held off the RW as long as he could. He and Al Gore deserver CREDIT for this...because we now know what they were up against..here on DU ...Oldie DU'ers know...what we were up against.

Who could have WON? Given the DARK SIDE'S POWER!

[Delano]

21. YES.

But it was more the timid dems thaan Clinton himself. He was an effective president, and he can't be blamed for the party's cowardice in recent years.