Eschewing the rat race: why I opposed Clinton in 1992

[hfojvt]

Reading through this old Clinton speech I was at first encouraged by the first half of the speech, but then repulsed by the second half.


http://www.ibiblio.org/nii/econ-posit.html

The Two Americas and the problems of ordinary working people

"The determination and quiet courage of these brave Americans has kept me going through the toughest moments of this campaign. Every day, their struggles and their stories have reminded me what this election is really all about.

This campaign can't be just another shallow political quarrel between Republicans and Democrats in Washington. For more than a decade, both parties have failed us there."

Similar message to what both Edwards and Obama are saying. This election is about the people (Edwards) and Washington has failed them (Obama).

One huge thing though, is that now Bill Clinton himself is added to the list and so is Hillary. Between them, they have now had 16 years to try to change things, and yet we seem to have the very same issues.

"Last October, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a remarkable series called "America: What Went Wrong," which documented in statistics and stories what has happened to the country we love. The series, written by Donald Barlett and James Steele, is must reading for any student of politics, ethics, or business -- and it holds important lessons for politicians and voters alike.

Barlett and Steele found that for the forgotten middle class, the '80s were an economic disaster. The size of the middle class fell for the first time since the '30s. Middle-class people are spending more time on the job, less time with their children, and bringing home less money to pay more for health care, housing, and education -- while those at the top of the totem pole saw their taxes go down and their incomes go up.

People who make over $200,000 saw their incomes rise fifteen times faster than average Americans. The average middle- class person, by contrast, is working 158 hours a year more than in 1969 for about the same income -- an extra month of work without extra pay. A new social order is emerging, more unequal, more divided, more impenetrable to those who seek to get ahead.

The U.S. fell from 8th to 22nd in wage inequality in the 1980s. According to a recent study, one percent of the people in the '80s got 60 percent of the country's growth. America is evolving a new social order, more unequal, more divided, more impenetrable to those who seek to get ahead. And although America's rich got richer in the 1980s, the country did not. Ten years ago, America had the highest wages in the world. Now we're tenth, and falling. We went from being the world's largest creditor to being the world's largest debtor. The stock market tripled, but wages went down. "

There he seems to talk about the two Americas. The prosperous America of the rich, and the struggling America of the working class. He is in the election to help the working class, but in the second half he offers his plans for helping them. How is he gonna help our country and our workers? - mostly through economic growth.


The One Solution - economic growth

At this point, many are probably thinking. Well, what could be wrong with that? In a society that constantly teaches that more is better and that growth is not only good, but the only alternative to death, growth is taken for granted by most people to be a good thing. My main problem is that it is a validation of greed, of selfishness, basically of the rat race. Here's how he describes the purpose of education.

"It means giving every young American who works hard and plays by the rules a chance to get ahead:"

There is the goal. Not a good life. Not a chicken in every pot or a car in every garage. Not service to others or compassion for the needy. But to "get ahead". That can be a motivator, no doubt, but it also seems to be a recipe for personal and social unhappiness. I am not happy bicycling or taking the bus, because other people have cars. I am not happy with my car, because other people have nicer cars. I am not happy wherever I am, unless I am "ahead" of other people.

So there we are in the 1980s, one of the richest countries in the world. A country that uses more than its proportionate share of the world's resources. And what do we want? More! More! More! And when do we want it? Now! Now! Now! Just like that ad using that Queen song that I love, the advertising people always enourage everyone to "want it all", and to "want it now!"

"Together, we can build a new American community that honors individual achievement, neighborhood security, economic growth, academic and corporate excellence, government efficiency, and national strength. The new American community will summon -- by example, encouragement, by exhortation, and sometimes by law -- a new spirit of service at every level of our society."

How rightwing that all sounds - individual, security, growth, excellence, efficiency, strength. Those are all code words to me. There is nothing wrong with them per se, except when you make them the over-riding standards. Individual over co-operation. Security over conviviality. Excellence over humanity. Growth over moderation and balance and perspective. (Is too much really never enough? When will you finally say 'no mas'?). Efficiency over compassion. Strength over friendship (a bully to be feared versus a respected friend.)

Michael Harrington made this point so well. Some people were complaining about mine safety regulations, showing that those regulations resulted in lost productivity (gasp! Inefficiency. Slower growth.) Harrington pointed out that they resulted in SAVED LIVES. Corporations always value efficiency, growth, productivity, and profit. Those are corporate values. Saved lives, reduced injuries, the personal well being of their workers, reduced pollution. Those are all things that get in the way of economic growth, that slow the progress of the forward stampede of the rat race.

Clinton calls for service at the conclusion of his speech.

"So that citizens will serve their families and their consciences; managers will serve their workers; corporations will serve their clients and their customers; executives will serve their shareholders; elected officials will serve the national interest; and government will once again serve our people."

But service to what ends? For what purposes?

"And when we build this community, this mutually reinforcing fabric of rights and responsibilities, challenges and commitments, America will rise above the perils and uncertainties of this moment, and become most productive, most prosperous, most energetic, and most respected nation in the world again."

The goal is the same as it has been in American history - more money. To make America "productive", "prosperous" "energetic" and "respected". That sounds like a really fast rat who thinks he can win the rat race, that any rat can win if they only train hard enough.

He seemed to miss the message of the 1960s, that even the winners of this race are losers. That it is the race itself that is the problem. It's a race that everybody loses, even the lead rats.

As it turned out, the first "Boomer" President was not a hippie. He was a yuppie.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. More nostalgia for the 60's ... ugh

Yes, we work for a living - and it's very satisfying. I never heard a hippie as contented as HRC.

[Rageneau]

3. Yeah, we all remember what a horrible economy we had under Clinton.

It was awful. Companies having to offer big bonuses to attract new employees, double-digit DOW expansion almost monthly, lower taxes on the poor, higher and higher salaries, Greenspan having to raise interest rates every two months to "slow down" our "too hot" economy, endless discussions on what we were going to do with the three trillion dollar budget surplus, first of its kind in this century.

Yeah, Clinton's economy was awful. Not like today's Republican one.

So, obviously, anybody who opposed Clinton in 1992 because of the economic plans, fixes and options he brought to Washington, has to be commended for being so much more perceptive than the rest os us, right?

Yeah, sure.

[hfojvt]

4. is she contented?

Then why is she trying so hard to become President?

The bottom line is not about contentment either though. Bush is probably happier than I am. With his money, he ought to be, and he has regularly spoken to rooms full of admirers. But has he been part of the problem or part of the solution?

Nostalgia for the sixties seems to me much better than nostalgia for the 90s which I remember all too well. I remember one time in Sunday school some older people than me saying adamantly that their parents were better off than they were. And this was in the prosperous 90s.

Are most workers in this country feeling satisfied? Even the people working at Wal-mart, or as temps?

[Fredda Weinberg]

6. HRC answered why ... she has a vision for a better village

Money has nothing to do w/contentment - it's a philosophical state where you decide what you are meant to do and then achieve it. HRC is successful even when she fails, because she learns and does things for the right reasons.

Are more people satisfied today than in the 60's? Maybe, maybe not. But we are more realistic - the beat generation had a chance and disappointed those of us who grew up in the Age of Aquarius. Lots of poetry ... little practical advice.

[hfojvt]

7. so is that vision in that old book "It takes a village"?

I have not seen that much vision from her website, or in her debate performances.

"Deciding what you are meant to do" sounds kinda scary to me, particularly when you are impacting other people's lives. So far I am not seeing a lot of good come out of her campaign, and I dread having her at the top of our ticket. There are Democratic legislators and Senators who agree with me on that too.

You left out an adjective though. "Bad". As in "lots of bad poetry". I think specifically of "The Howl" wotta piece of dreck.

Nothing wrong with a little pragmatism, except when "pragmatism" is a code word for "discarding your ideals".

[Fredda Weinberg]

8. I haven't discarded my ideals; neither has HRC

She's been my state's senator for over six years, showing she's about more than personal ambition. Whatever her past mistakes, her behavior is consistent with a sense of calling. It may be impossible to explain that motivation, but she's been doing this long enough to be considered sincere.

In the time she's been in office, there hasn't been a whiff of scandal. Bill's office in Harlem is helping the 'hood and she won re-election handily. Honestly, I don't know what more she could do to convince anyone ... if walking the walk doesn't count ... maybe it's just not possible and you have to be here.

[hfojvt]

9. walking which walk?

the New York Senator seat was a springboard to the Democratic nomination?

She probably has been as good a Senator as Herb Kohl or John Edwards. But she voted for the IWR and still has not recanted the way Edwards has. Winning re-election handily is something a lot of incumbents do. Pat Roberts, for example, did not even have an opponent in 2002. I just have not seen her do that much as a Senator. However, she is running ads in my area now, pretending to be a populist. Just like previously she suddenly found herself being an anti-war candidate.

It's not like I haven't paid some attention to her Senate career. She simply hasn't been like Feingold, Kerry, Dodd, or Boxer. To say nothing of Wellstone.

[Fredda Weinberg]

10. This is a long term plan. You don't have to participate, but since

I share that vision, you can't deny it exists without trying to negate my existence.

[Armstead]

2. Great post -- It's the big picture that matters

During the latter 70's and the 80's, the country was sold an incredible CON job.

More than policies it was philosophical. That the only goal in life is to run faster and faster until we die of a heart attack. That competition and the Religion of the Markets are the only useful yeardsticks and sources of value.

The real choice was NOT between some hippie socialist utopia and Uber Darwinian Dog-Eat-Dog Capitalism. There were many other alternatives, which could have provided some balance.

But too many like Clinton bought into the CON job and sold it back to us in a kinder and gentler form.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Well, said. K&R