Max writes: >You could also interpret [right-wing] scandal-mongering
[against Clinton] as a straight-forward strategy to delegitimize government
and feed the attitude that nothing constructive can come from government.
This attitude is the most powerful brake on social reform, in my view. I
agree that we could interpret this strategy as a second-best from the
standpoint of conservatives, who might prefer to institute all manner of
conservative reforms. It is also true that in the U.S. the conservative
agenda appears exhausted if you set aside very ambitious but politically
impractical projects like destroying social security or replacing the income
tax with a flat tax or sales tax.<
Since there is more than one right wing, the
left-wing/right-wing/middle-of-the-bird metaphor breaks down. Max refers
above to the "anti-statist" or "libertarian" or "laissez-faire" right wing,
what might be called economic conservativism. But there is also the (very
statist) social-conservative or traditionalist right wing. These folks
attack Clinton because of his pro-choice (on abortion) attitude and his
generally social-liberal attitudes. (They want to impose state control on
our bedrooms and bodies; no libertarians they.) Abortion is almost the only
issue where Clinton shows any kind of backbone -- and that may be an
opportunist effort to maintain his core constitutency. The other
social-liberal issues, like his having smoked marijuana and his relatively
feminist or pro-gay stance on some issues (from the perspective of this
right wing), cling to the abortion issue and stick in the craw of people
like televangelist Jerry Falwell. (note the word "relatively.")
As for "delegitimizing government," Mr. & Ms. Clinton have done a good job
here, as with their effort to create a humonguous, overly-complicated, and
bureaucratic health insurance system in their first years. Clinton has also
embrace the less-gov-is-better line on many occasions.
"Social reform" also has more than one dimension (FDR economic liberalism,
ACLU civil libertarianism, "new movements" feminism or ethnic liberation,
sexual liberalism, etc.) I hope Max doesn't mean this phrase as a support
for paternalistic statism. Do we want more government? more Pentagon
spending? do we really want the central organization of societal repression
to be legitimized?
We probably need a better word than "reform," too, since the recent US
"welfare reform." How about talking about the popular struggle for economic
justice? Fuzzy, yes, but less so than "reform."
Michael E. forwards the following: >Following up the Lewinsky case and
Hillary Clinton's allegations of a "conspiracy," yesterday's _New York
Times_ published on p. 22 an article showing how campus right-wing groups
and their funders are involved in coordinating the attack. The article is
written by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Tim Weiner and former _Wall
Street Journal_ reporter Jill Abramson.<
I have no doubt that there are "right-wing" conspiracies against the
Clintons. But Ms. Clinton sinks her own boat by invoking such conspiracies,
or rather by using that word. The fact is that there is more than one right
wing. These groups compete with each other. The libertarians and the
traditionalists don't agree on a lot of things (like legalizing drugs),
though people like William Buckley try to unite them. In addition there are
personal animosities and sectarian feelings, just as on the left (or rather
in the lefts). Things political happen when the various competing forces
line up behind a single cause. Sometimes, it's even the right and the left
that unite as with issue of support for the IMF. Let's drop conspiracy
theories, leaving them for the militias to embrace. (The left's conspiracy
theories, like those pushed by the Christic institute have been a dead end.)
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
