De Blasio Inauguration: The Cautionary Clinton Tale

De Blasio Inauguration: The Cautionary Clinton Tale

De Blasio Inauguration: The Cautionary Clinton Tale

Everybody loves the former president. But he was no De Blasio Democrat.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

For progressives, there were a lot of inspiring things about Bill de Blasio’s formal swearing in as mayor on Wednesday: prayers that recognized the city’s incredible diversity, the dignity of Harry Belafonte, the power of poet Ramya Ramana, and the way all three citywide officials (the mayor, Public Advocate Letitia James and Comptroller Scott Stringer) so passionately articulated elements of the progressive agenda.

Then there was President Clinton.

All former presidents deserve respect, and anyone who had to meet Newt Gingrich more than once merits a round of applause. And yes, during the eight disastrous years of Dubya, many would have traded in their Ralph Nader stickers to bring Bubba back.

But in spite of his rock-star status and brilliance as an orator, Clinton has questionable value as a symbol of the kind of progressive change de Blasio has promised. He’s more accurately a symbol of dashed progressive hopes.

One remembers Bill Clinton’s inauguration in 1993. George 41 and Barbara taking the Reagan era with them out of town on Marine One. Bill and Hillary getting out of their car to walk during the inaugural parade. The Rock, the River, the Tree. And so on.

In office, however, Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA over labor’s objections and sought Most Favored Nation trading status for China in the face of severe human rights concerns. He waived human rights requirements to facilitate Plan Colombia, which provided military aid to the Bogota government. He oversaw much of the financial deregulation that enabled the 2007–08 financial crisis. He widened federal authority to impose the death penalty. He signed into law the harsh 1996 immigration bill, backed measures that vastly expanded executive power to fight “terrorism” and supported the odious Defense of Marriage Act.

Clinton did have some progressive instincts, reflected in his appointing Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, resisting the most Dickensian aspects of the Republican anti-welfare crusade, and his failed healthcare push. And he did have to deal with an ascendant, Contract-With-America-waving GOP.

But through his “third way” approach, Clinton legitimized the conservative argument for reducing or eliminating government. He moved the Democrats to the center. The Republican party simply moved right.

Presidents get great afterlives, fueled largely by fiction. Nixon was ultimately eulogized as a misunderstood genius, Reagan as a warm and cuddly grandfather to us all. And Clinton is now beloved by lefties who intensely disliked much of what he did. Weird.

Is de Blasio set up to confound the left as much as the forty-second president did? It’s a possibility. But the Clintons’ presence yesterday may have reflected a personal, rather than political, connection: De Blasio worked in the Clinton administration and ran Hillary Clinton’s first campaign for the Senate. Plus, de Blasio ran this year well to the left of any territory that Bill and Hill staked out during their time as candidates.

What’s more, the political atmosphere has changed vastly since the president’s era of triangulation, mainly because we have seen what it wrought. At City Hall on Wednesday, Clinton fully endorsed de Blasio’s focus on inequality before the new mayor took the oath of office with his hand on a bible FDR was given at his first inauguration.

Back when “the era of big government” was over, the New Deal was not a popular reference for the Clinton team. Today, it works. Like Maya Angelou said when Bill Clinton was the face of hope twenty-one years ago:

“History, despite its wrenching pain
cannot be unlived, and if faced
with courage, need not be lived again.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x