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.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

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.”

Support The Nation’s June Fundraising Campaign

With the midterm elections now firmly upon us, the question is whether Democratic candidates will do more than merely occupy ballot lines as mild alternatives to the red-hot crisis that is Donald Trump.

As Trump spends over $1 billion a day on a globally destabilizing war on Iran and admits that he doesn’t “think about Americans’ financial situation,” millions across the country are struggling with the surging costs of essentials. Democrats must seize this moment and advance bold, small-“d” populist ideas—not settle for cynical caution that once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Nation elevates progressive ideas, movements, and elected officials achieving real change across the country into the national conversation. At the same time, our journalists are exposing how crypto and AI-funded super PACs are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to knock out candidates they oppose, reporting on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, and sounding the alarm on attempts by red states to quickly redraw electoral maps, disenfranchising Southern Black voters.

We can play this critical role because of support from readers like you. This June, we’re raising $20,000 to power The Nation’s independent journalism in the run-up to November’s immensely consequential elections.

It’s in our power to build a more just society, and your support at this critical moment brings us closer to that bold vision. I hope you’ll donate today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x