where would you place president clinton on the political spectrum?

[rdfi-defi]

this question evolved out of another thread about "moderates," the "far left," and the "far right." to talk about clinton in detail was off topic for that thread, but i did want to respond to one of the other posters who disagreed with my stance on the subject. one thing we did agree on was that a person could not be placed in a fixed position on the political spectrum based on one issue alone.

******disclaimer********************************************
i realize that du is a sight with many hardcore dem party supporters, who admire president clinton and his policies. i did not start this thread to bash him or the dem party. i simply want to give my view of clinton economic policy in response to a credible post from another thread. i hope i can get some civilized answers to my post. i get a little rude myself sometimes, if i do again i will try to apologize where appropriate. so please join in the discussion.
******end disclaimer****************************************

the political spectrum: for our discussion i think it would be helpful to include all political ideas (a global political spectrum), not just the narrow range of ideas usually included in us political debate.

the two main topics on the table were clinton's economic policy, and his foreign policy. since clinton is perceived to have been successful in the area of economics during his presidency, i would like to focus on that. imo it is harder to make a case against clinton's economic policy than his foreign policy, but if you would like to comment on foreign policy that is okay with me.

-----------------

some (i am sure the poster has plenty more) of the economic stats that were posted to argue that clinton's economic policies placed him on the left of the political spectrum:

..an economic policy that created almost 6 million new jobs in the first two years of his administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.

..an economic policy that created the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction.

15 million working families enjoyed tax relief under President Clinton's expanded Earned Income Tax Credit. Thanks to Clinton, the EITC lifted 4.3 million people out of poverty in 1998 alone.

Clinton increased funding for the head start program by 90% in FY 2000 so 880,000 children had a better chance to learn and grow.

Clinton forced the minimum wage up from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour and demanded an increase to $6.15.

The poverty rate fell from 15.1 % in 1993 to 12.7 % in 1998. That the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five year drop in nearly 30 years (1965-70)

The African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 % in 1993 to 26.1 % in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-72)

The poverty rate for Hispanics fell to the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 % in 1998.

For women the unemployment rate was 4.3 % in March 2000, nearly the lowest since 1953.

---------------

some stats i would like to add to the discussion:

The poverty thresh holds for 1998: $8,183 for an individual, $16,660 for a family of 4

Between 1979 and 2001 family income for the bottom 20% increased 3%, second 20% increased 11%, middle 20% increased 17%, fourth 20% increased 26%, top 20% increased 53%, and the top 5% increased 81%.

Forty-seven million households in the U.S. have annual incomes below $35,000, and in the event of a layoff or medical crisis, 40% of American families would run out of cash within 3 days. (New York Times)

Between 1989 and 2000, the typical married couple's income rose 13.9%. However, families had to work an additional 186 hours per year (4.65 work weeks), for a total of 3,719 hours. The average African-American family worked 3,800 hours per year, an increase of more than 200 hours since 1989. In those same years, poverty rates fell faster for Hispanics (4.9 percentage points) and African-Americans (8.7 percentage points) than they did for whites (0.9 percentage points). Yet minorities continue to have much higher overall poverty rates. (Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America, pp. 97, 99, 318)

The income share going to the richest 5% of families reached 17.9% in 1989, 21% in 2001. (Frank Levy, "The New Dollars and Dreams: American Incomes and Economic Change" Data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2001)

In 2001, the average American production worker's inflation-adjusted weekly wages were 5% below what they had been in 1973. (Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America, p. 121)

In 1979, the average male college graduate earned about a third more than the median high school graduate; by 2001 the gap had widened to 79%. (Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America, 2002-03, p. 121)

The average CEO makes 1,027 times more than a minimum wage worker. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as executive pay since 1990, it would stand at $21.41 an hour as opposed to $5.15. (FairEconomy.org)

CEO pay as a multiple of average worker pay: 1998- 419x, 1999- 475x, 2000- 531x, 2001- 411x.

Increases from 1990 to 2001: CEO pay +463%, worker pay +42%, inflation +36%. .

Roughly 41 million Americans -- one seventh of the population -- have no health insurance. In 1990, the figure was 35 million. About 8.5 million children are uninsured. (U.S. Census Bureau)

Between 1996 and 2000, 71% of foreign corporations paid no federal income tax. 61% of American corporations paid no income tax. In 2000, an estimated 94% of American corporations, and 89% of foreign corporations paid less than 5% of their total incomes in taxes. (Associated Press)

---------------------

i contend that the economic policies of president clinton were a continuation of what we refer to as "neo-liberal economics," or "globalization." these policies started in the late 1970's and continue to this day. the fact that working class and poor people made gains in the 1990's under clinton was nothing more than "trickle down economics." the fact that it took (working class/poor people) more people (in the same family), working more hours, to achieve gains than were not comparable to that of the CEOs, or those in the higher tax brackets, during the same time period is proof that clinton continued an economic policy that puts the financial burdens of society unevenly on lower income people, while shielding multi-million/billion dollar corporations from risk. that is a right-wing idea. i am not saying right-wing ideas can not work, and surely many people did well financially during the clinton admin (which is a good thing). clinton also signed nafta into law, i do not have to go into details because we all know them. outsourcing, capital flight, under minding of democratic institutions, are all right-wing economic ideas. How far right on the global political spectrum can be debated, but they are right-wing non the less. i also want to acknowledge that clinton did make some steps in the right direction, and reiterate i did not start this thread to bash him or the dems, i just wanted to have an unbiased discussion about president clintons policies.

[Cat Atomic]

1. If we exclude dictatorships from the global political spectrum

I'd put Clinton right of center. Maybe... 20% to the right of center.

Welfare reform, NAFTA... he helped to weaken domestic labor and to marginalize the poor.

Our current regime would be almost completely over to the right. They'd be in Hitler territory.

[Walt Starr]

3. I'm with you

only I put Clinton at 20% right of center with no other considerations.

[greendog]

8. I say 25% right of center.....

....with no other considerations. President "Slick" was a solid corporatist.

[PurityOfEssence]

2. Zero being Trotsky and 100 being DeLay, Clinton's about 59

He's a tad to the right of pure center, but remember: American Politics are a bit shifted to the right anyway.

Anyone agree?-

[rdfi-defi]

4. yes, i agree that us politics is squed right

that is why i like the phrase "global political spectrum," maybe "universal political spectrum," would be better? i think it widens the debate to include ideas not usually give an audience in mainstream us debate.

thanks for your response

[rdfi-defi]

5. kick for opposing view point?

[rdfi-defi]

6. .

try number 2 :evilgrin:

[rdfi-defi]

7. last call, any takers..............

.......................w.wolf?

[caffefwee]

9. Wouldn't it be more fun to place Bush?

Who would have ever thought someone could outdo Richard Nixon!

[wyldwolf]

11. no, the original poster has a bone to pick with Clinton because...

..Clinton did not pass his liberal litmus test.

[wyldwolf]

10. Solid left of center moderate...

...and the question is, were his economic policies liberal or liberal enough? Who makes that determination? How is it defined?

My definition: The policies must have improved the economic standings of the lower and middle class.

Aside from what I listed, quoted by you, above, one must remember that in 1992, 10 million citizens were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression.

• During the Clinton years, economic growth averaged 4% per year, compared to average growth of 2.8% during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy grew for over 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
  
  
• Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy of Bill Clinton created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years: the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years.
  
  
• Economic gains have were made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all citizens. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
  
  
• Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9% in 1993 to just 4% in November, 2000. The unemployment rate was below 5% for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fell from 14.2% in 1992 to 7.3% in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8% in October 1992 to 5% in October, 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
  
  
• Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: Inflation was at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5%, down from 4.7% during the previous administration.
  
  
• The poverty rate declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.8% in 2000, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. As of 2000, 7 million fewer people were in poverty than there were in 1993.
  
  
• Lowest Federal Income Tax Burden in 35 Years: Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical family dropped to their lowest level in 35 years during Clinton's two terms.
  

Did Clinton address and solve every economic concern - no matter how small - there was? Of course not. But did he have to do that to prove his liberal credentials? No! The question is, was the lower and middle class overall better off under his administration than they were for the prior 30 years? A definite yes.

Did Clinton make mistakes? Sure. But does one have to be mistake free to be liberal? I hope not or there are no liberals among us.

Welfare reform? The American public was overwhelmingly in favor of welfare reform. It was going to be done - either by the president or the Republican Congress. Yes, President Clinton signed a bad "welfare reform" bill in 1996, but Clinton vetoed worse Republican bills twice, winning concessions each time including - increased child care funding (by $4 billion), worker retraining, extensions for benefits, exceptions for "hard cases" and more.

NAFTA? Once again, this was George H.W. Bush's baby - signed on Dec. 17, 1992 (http://jordan.fortwayne.com/ns/projects/nafta/naftac.php)

But, of course, NAFTA took flight and grew under Clinton's watch but the success or failure of it is still in debate among many (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2458)

Whether you personally believe that NAFTA was bad, you do have to admit that, based on the stats above, our economy could certainly support in in the 90s.

But is one issue (NAFTA) among many sets of issue headings (economy/foreign policy/civil rights, etc) enough to push Clinton over to the right on the political spectrum?

Does the fact that he brokered peace in Northern Ireland and almost solved the Israeli/Palestinian issue not earn him some liberal stripes?

How about he enacted the single largest investment in health care for children since 1965?

In fact, Clinton did so much in regards to the economy, family, and education that to say he is right of center is fairly ridiculous.

But what of other dems generally considered "liberal" here?

Kucinich - who was anti-choice until it became a political liability to him?

Dean - whose state's rights stances on gun control and tort reform put him in opposition to established liberal thought?

Would I say these issues make them "right of center?"

No, I would not.