Roxanne is right. This story her friend tells about meeting Bill Clinton is interesting. The friend, David Rolland, had a chance to ask Clinton a question. This is what he asked:
“Sir,” I said, “you signed three laws that contained elements that I think are inconsistent with some of the themes [cautions against consolidation of wealth and power, and advocacy of a more humane global community] in the speech you just gave. NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and welfare reform—what, if anything, do you regret about them?”
His response knocked my socks off, not necessarily in its content, but more in the manner of its delivery.
Read Rolland's account. You'll get an idea of how deeply Clinton believes or at least believed in that third-way stuff and how completely he underestimated his political opponents - to say nothing of the way he underestimated his enemies. That's a big flaw in a leader and we're paying the price for it today.
He regrets the “social” impacts of NAFTA. The agreement, he told me, was a fait accompli, but he said he was certain Al Gore would beat George W. Bush and that Gore would fix it.
Didn't miss by much.
Maybe "Third way" is another way of saying "assume an honorable opposition." Maybe Clinton should have known better, but there'd been no experience of opposition to a Democratic president since the Carter years, and not many people foresaw Rumsfeld, Cheney et al rising from their coffins.
But I'm not arguing with your take on Clinton too much. He was and is more of a shmoozer than a fighter, and that can only take you so far in our brave new world.
Posted by: Thomas Nephew | June 25, 2006 at 09:38 PM
It's interesting, Kennedy stayed on board NCLB even though he knows it's bad law for what he claims to be the same reason: better to have a bad law we can fix than no law at all. And the same thing happened with Medicare Part D, which is a travesty.
Now immigration legislation is stalled but only because it isn't draconian enough to suit the maniacs in the House. If the GOP holds on to the House and the Senate and the immigration law is reworked to accomodate the extremists, I wonder if the Dems will still be signing the same "some law is better than no law" tune. If they do, then I don't think we can chalk their appeasement up to underestimating their opponents or civility.
Posted by: eRobin | June 26, 2006 at 07:54 AM