This is to tee up CVFD’s long-awaited (much too long in my adoring opinion) piece about Bill Clinton’s incrementalism.

Much of the debate and acrimony about HRC this election year hinges on people’s interpretations of 1) her husband’s Presidency, 2) her role in it, and 3) her role in the DLC’s re-shaping of the party.   Essentially, they are three lenses on the Democratic politics of the 1990s and of the time when HRC first came on the national scene.  Conversational threads often get muddles, when people change lenses.

(Example:  Mark Ruffalo was called out as sexist on Bill Maher’s show when he referenced HRC’s support of the crime bill.  Maher used #1 – “it was the President’s bill, not HRC’s, don’t be sexist and assume she’s a wife who mimics her  husband’s thoughts” to deny #2, that she had an office in the West Wing and was a Senior Domestic Policy Advisor who was quite active on the crime bill.)

So, just to focus on #1 – Bill Clinton’s record.  Even when conversations are focused on his achievements, things get slippery.  For example, it’s a pretty regular ritual for me, when arguing/talking with an HRC/WJC supporter, to reel off the ways in which I, personally, thought WJC was terrible on crime and played the race card:  1) flying home to execute the man who didn’t even know he was being executed; 2) campaigning near the birthplace of the KKK in front an all-black chain gang with all-white wardens; 3) expanding the death penalty; 4) extending sentences; 5) targeting crack more aggressively than coke; 6) gutting education funding; 7) the super-predator myth . . . n) whatever I end on when I finally take a breath.

Invariably, the conversation ends with something like:  “remember the times and how powerful the Republicans were.”  Both Clintons wound end up taking that line recently, suggesting that the bill was what it was because… Republicans.

Fair enough.

The question, then, is whether it’s an accomplishment for the administration?  If the legislation was inevitable, and it’s final shape determined by the opposing party, what are we supposed to pat ourselves or WJC on the back for having done?  How did the incrementalist approach – or compromises – advance your causes?  What exactly should liberals be pleased with?

I think this is a more important question than just being snarky.  When you formulate a candidacy as muddled about race, the welfare state, class, business, and employment as the Clintons do, what exactly can we expect them to achieve in office?  This isn’t just a question about what they really believe, it gets to the heart of whether they’ve built a mandate for anything.  If incrementalism is the pragmatic way to achieve our ends, it’s hard to see how Clinton proved the efficacy of that approach.

============================================

Below are the things that I hear/read/think are WJC’s signature accomplishments.  We like to put them on the back of name cards at dinner gatherings with a + or – sign as a party game.

1. One increase in minimum wage
2. NAFTA
3. Crime bill
4. Welfare reform
5. Raising tax rates for the wealthiest
6. Sustained GDP growth
7. “Winning the abortion war” as some called it