Bill Clinton, Conservative of the Future

LewRockwell.com | 1/7/2002 | Daniel McCarthy

[rob777]

Imagine an America where Bill Clinton is considered a mainstream conservative. An America, indeed, where conservatives model their own ideas and actions on those of the former President. Sound far-fetched? Just wait. It might take sixty years but the day is coming when William Jefferson Clinton will be an hero to the right.

Throughout his presidency Clinton was perhaps only marginally more popular among conservatives than Saddam Hussein, that other bugbear of the 90's. Conservative-penned exposes of Clinton corruption were more than a cottage industry, they were the publishing equivalent of the Palace of Versailles. All with good reason: Clinton's corruption and buffoonery were all that they were made out to be, and much more.

Bill Clinton was not the first American President to earn such well-deserved conservative animosity however. Within the same century there had been an even more corrupt and dangerous man in the Oval Office, whose popularity was even greater than Clinton's, and whom conservatives dedicated their lives and livelihoods to fighting. That man was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

There was a time when the right-wing was practically defined by its opposition to FDR, in much the same way as opposition to Clinton was characteristic of '90s conservatism. Albert Jay Nock, later an influence on Bill Buckley and Frank Chodorov, discussed at length the similarities between Roosevelt's administration and fascism in the first chapter of Our Enemy, the State. H.L. Mencken's assessment of of Roosevelt's character was that "If he became convinced tomorrow that coming out for cannibalism would get him the votes he sorely needs, he would begin fattening a missionary in the White House backyard come Wednesday" and further that Roosevelt was "the first American to penetrate the real depths of vulgar stupidity."

That was then. Today, fifty-six years after Roosevelt's death, "America's Premier Conservative Website" runs a flattering imitation of FDR's "Four Freedoms." National Review On-line's Michael Novak doesn't just use this piece of New Deal propaganda for rhetorical effect; Novak's list includes the same socialist "freedom from want" that Roosevelt's did. The right has come a long way from Nock's verdict on the Four Freedoms: "There is no such thing, four or forty. Freedom has no plural. Freedom either is, or isn't."

Latter-day Republican leaders like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich have spoken highly of FDR, but what's more significant is the modern right's embrace of Roosevelt's policies. Consider the right's fight to save social security. Even the Cato Institute is in on the act. Today's right is trying to conserve the very policies most of the Old Right opposed. It's a 180 degree reversal.

The right came to cherish FDR and the New Deal within the span of sixty years, so there's no reason to think it cannot learn to love Clinton as well. That would be less remarkable than what has happened to the right's attitude toward Roosevelt. If Clinton's stature on the right doesn't grow to match Roosevelt's, it will only be because Clinton achieved less. It might be difficult to imagine conservatives fighting as hard to save Americorps as they fight to save Social Security. On the other hand it's not so difficult to imagine them fighting to save Hillarycare, which is where the creeping socialization of American medicine is heading.

Every year conservatism becomes a little less conservative. Every year the left pushes the boundaries of government out a little bit further, and the right responds by trying to restore them to last year's limits. Under these conditions the Clintonization of the right is inevitable. Government will keep growing and America will become an increasingly difficult place to raise a family or run a business – but we'll all have become too much like Clinton to care.

If the right doesn't want to become like Clinton it has to stop being like FDR. That's not as easy as it sounds, because it means not only giving up Social Security and the New Deal, but also the Rooseveltian "arsenal of democracy." After all, World War II saved the New Deal. The legitimate functions of government are its vital organs and they drive its growth. It doesn't do any good to attack the newest and most controversial functions of government; conservatives must start with the oldest and most necessary. That’s why the Old Right was staunchly anti-war.

Unless we are anti-statist even when the State is most useful and legitimate, America will continue on its leftward course and tomorrow's right will embrace Bill Clinton the way today's right embraces the legacy of Roosevelt.

[rob777]

The above is an apt description of how the public political debate keeps moving tho the left. What was once considered mainstreme liberal thought, is now considered mainstreme conservative thought. Worse than that, is the fact that mainstreme conservative thought of yesterday is now considered "extremist" and beyond the limit of civil debate today. A good example is how people like Alan Keyes and Ron Paul are recieved, especially Ron Paul. The conservative movement needs such people as a principled anchor, not only to prevent further leftward drift, but to start moving the debate back in the direction of liberty.

[JCG]

If they would just exhume the bodies for honest autopsies, we'd never have to worry about the Klintons again.

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

[PackerBoy]

Hero to the Right? Why not?

After all, throughout the Lewinsky scandal, he fought to "save the Constitution."

ROTFLMAO

[Chuckster]

Ah, I see I'm not the only one who noticed this. d;^)

Precisely why I don't call myself a conservative anymore but rather a "Restorationist". 'Conservative' defines one who is desirous of maintaining the status quo or of returning to the political situation of the recent past.

I think we've come too far for that and I don't think we can hope for much more than slowing down the headlong rush to the left that our government is taking by ordinary poitical means.

What does that mean? Can't say. My crystal ball is in the shop.

[Michael.SF.]

The above is an apt description of how the public political debate keeps moving to the left. What was once considered mainstreme liberal thought, is now considered mainstreme conservative thought.

**************************************************************************

The blame for this shift can be placed squarely on the shoulders of Republicans, for allowing this to be the case, and on the media, who are both not challenged and who rarely challenge those in power.

Just as an example, here on this board FNC's Bill O'Reilly is being skewered, by some for being a "charlatan". When we should be supporting him, even though we may have some problems with his bombast and pompousness.

Now, I for one enjoy O'Reilly partly because he is one of the few faces on the news who is willing to talk about policies and people that the others leave untouched (i.e. :Jesse 'hymie town' Jackson).

Face it, O'Reilly is the fastest growing, most watched cable news source that comes close to presenting an alternative conservative side.

It is very, very disappointing to continue to see Republicans back down in the face of a challenge from, the likes of Tom "60=51%" Daschle.

[VikingFan]

Call me an optimist but..... I see the following in the future: Those who limit their knowledge base to the newspaper (i.e. NYTimes, or local copycat newspaper) are dwindling in numbers. Those who limit their knowledge base to the three "major" networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) are also dwindling. I see a future generation with acquisition of wealth being a major priority, with a significant, multi-source knowledge base, and a belief that proprietorship is a possibility. And a belief that Clinton policies are bad for the economy. Clinton will be nothing more than a houshold joke.

[Diverdogz]

The right will always have to shift leftward enough to grab 50+ percent of the vote lest they be powerless. ...but this past year, with Bush in office, I see the left having to shift more towards the right to maintain viability. An anomaly? Probably. There is no doubt of the long term leftward shift trend.

[Twodees]

I maintain my insistence that I'm a conservative, mainly by rejecting the left/right socialist scale. Of course, republicans here who think that their utopian socialism is conservative revile me as a dangerous radical.

[LonePalm]

You forgot the Barf Alert and Lew Rockwell warnings.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LoanPalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Michael.SF.]

...but this past year, with Bush in office, I see the left having to shift more towards the right to maintain viability.

*****************************************************************************************************

Actually, the shift towards the middle for the Democrats, began during the Clinton Administration when Gingrich led the way to reclaim Congress for the first time in forty years. Recall the Clinton administration of '92-'93. A major focus was put on the Health care 'Crisis' and Hillary led the charge for Socialised Medicine.

Fortunately, this opened the door for people to realize how dangerous the Clinton's were, if left unrestrained. Thus the Clintons, and the publics fear, led as much to regaining Congress as Newt did.

But of course this shift was at the top only and thus was nothing more then a cheap facade propped up by illegal campaign contributions. Clinton became a moderate, not be design or by desire, but for survival.

Recall: Dick 'toe sucker' Morris: If you do not sign welfare reform, you will lose."

In reality, the D's in their shrewdness recognized that this was a requirement and thus blessed Clinton as the saviour of the Democratic Party. But look now who has the power: Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi and their cohorts.

No, the Democrats claim to be loyal Americans, but their loyalty will always be first to the Party and they will even stoop so low as to honor a scumbag like Clinton to achieve their ends.

It is really sad actually to see that they have succeded in so many ways by relying on the dumbing down of today's society. And they have done this while pretending to have both intellectual and moral superiority.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Within the same century there had been an even more corrupt and dangerous man in the Oval Office

FDR more dangerous than Clinton? Possibly, maybe even probably. But more corrupt? No way. Our boy Bill bows to no one, alive or dead, on the corruption scale.

[Ditto]

If Clinton's stature on the right doesn't grow to match Roosevelt's, it will only be because Clinton achieved less.

Not being flippant, but I can't think of anything significant that Clinton 'accomplished' for good or evil, that will be remembered 65 years from now. Aside from his (actually Hillary’s) disastrous Health Care plan that was nearly unanimously rejected by both the political class and the public, his administration was nothing but 8 years of posing, posturing and photo-ops during a time when the business cycle was booming. He was never forced to confront any serious domestic or international problems and completely ignored several emerging problems that the Bush administration is now forced to deal with. His administration will be as memorable as James Buchanan’s, which incidentally also ignored ‘emerging problems.’

As to Social Security, it is as much Libertarian Utopianism today to think it will simply go away as it was Socialist Utopianism 70 years ago to think it would ever truly provide for the needs of people in a post-agricultural society. The issue now is not ending it, but rationalizing it for the postindustrial economy that we are entering. If Conservatives are using good common sense in dealing with this issue, and countering the liberal breaucratic interests in maintaining the status quo, more power to them. Slavish devotion to ideological theory never works and because no ideology can factor all the variables. It is always rejected by the public.