Replies

One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is this: Clinton, Blair and the other "new labour" types took power in the 1990's. They had the luxury of riding the post-Cold War economic boom. They did nothing to bring it about, but in a huge historical irony, they became the political beneficiaries. In a sense, it didn't matter who was in charge in the '90's; they were almost destined to succeed in some way. The old commercial beer-dog, Spuds McKenzie, or Felix the Cat could have won re-election in the US in '96. Governments had yet to "run out of other people's money," as Lady Thatcher put it. If all you cared about was economics, governing was easy in the '90's. You just had to get out of the way. To go down as a success, you only had to stay out of trouble (which is why Clinton's impeachment is such a black mark against him--how can you screw up your presidency when it's almost impossible to fail?)

Of course, the worm was already in the apple. Even though there was real growth and innovation taking place (there almost always is somewhere), indebtedness was growing, the Enron/Global-Crossing scams were percolating beneath the surface, outsourcing was a growing problem. These problems were probably remediable, but no one in power had the foresight to act.

And that's not to mention little things like the growing threat of terrorism and al-Quaida, but that's a different subject.

They did nothing to bring it about, but in a huge historical irony, they became the political beneficiaries.

Exactly. Clinton also benefited from Republicans taking over Congress in 1994. With the help of the compliant media he took credit for most of Contract with America successes, while fighting them tooth and nail and blaming Gingrich and Republicans for all the [perceived] problems.

(which is why Clinton's impeachment is such a black mark against him -- how can you screw up your presidency when it's almost impossible to fail?)

Well put. I was saying at the time that Blair was a Clinton's political clone without a sex scandal. At least the impeachment process likely prevented us from having President Gore... just barely.

And that's not to mention little things like the growing threat of terrorism and al-Quaida, but that's a different subject.

Probably more due to incompetence, with a very weak foreign policy team, and disinterest in foreign affairs except for pomp and circumstance (i.e., (kicking the can down the road) rather than deliberately... but that is a different subject.