Sunday, October 01, 2006


There's no hope in Clinton. It's just a handful of people that run everything, and that's provable.... I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?' "Er, just what my agenda is..." - Bill Hicks, "The Elite"

So let's hear no more about what a great guy Clinton is or was. Perhaps he did start off as a decent guy. Maybe he really did want to make the world a better place. But as soon as he stepped into the White House, every policy which aimed to help the poor or make America a more equal society was untenable with the interests that every President of the United States of America is really there to defend: those of American capital.

When Clinton left the White House, America was a significantly less equal country than when he first became President, and that was after 12 years of Republican Presidency. It had subjected some of the weakest parts of the world to its military campaigns, killing civilians in Baghdad and Belgrade and destroying its infrastructure. It had destroyed a generation of Iraqi children as a result of sanctions. Soon after becoming President, back in 1992, Clinton said: "We're Eisenhower Republicans here. We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn't that great?" And just in case you're still getting all loved up about the guy, here's what he privately said a year later when his interventionist strategy in Somalia was starting to hit the rails:

"When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers. I believe in killing people who try to hurt you, and I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks."

Not really so different to what John Bolton said during the bombing of Lebanon, is it?

The sycophancy which surrounds Clinton is borne, I guess, out of nostalgia for something that never existed, or out of a barely concealed glee that a country of imbeciles has in Bush got the President it deserves. The only arguments I have heard in favour of Clinton have been (a) that he was more competent that Bush Jr and (b) that, since no genuinely left-wing President could ever survive in office for long without compromising his ideals, a guy like Clinton is the best we can hope for.

Let's deal with (b) first, as it is by far the most stupid of the two. Its implication - that it is capitalism which prevents an ethical Presidency from becoming a real possibility - is a perfectly sensible one. It is true that a left-wing President would not get into office in America, though this is because of the all-powerful media, rather than people's instincitive political persuasions. But almost none of the people who defend / worship Clinton (and there are plenty of them) are anti-capitalists. Which means that if you are someone who likes Clinton for this reason, and yet does not oppose capitalism, you are contradicting yourself. You are blithely pretending that capitalism is acceptable when it is fronted by an intelligent, articulate, downhome guy like Clinton. Take some time to think this through properly, and get back to me when you have something sensible to say. OK?


Opinion (a) - that Clinton was merely competent where Bush has been incompetent - is not wholly untrue, though I do think this impression was created as a result of the Clinton administration's consumate political propaganda. This opinion is the one voiced by the dying breed (intellectually dying, as well as numerically) of American liberals. They argue that the problem with Bush is not his rabid imperialism, his war on terror, his merciless greed, his flagrant disregard for anyone outside his immediate political and spiritual circles. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were not wrong per se, they argue, it is just that the Republicans have executed these policies so badly. These interventionist liberals are not hacked off with Bush's ideology (which they explicitly support), but with the calamitous discharge of his duties.

Hence why the Democrats (including Clinton) have failed to oppose Bush's Middle East policies, including the support for Israel's assault on Lebanon. They can't oppose them, because they cannot think outside of the US hegemonic mindset. Again, you can support opinion (a) if you wish, but if you do, please don't pretend to be anything other than an apologist for imperialism, exploitation and war.


Blogger Renegade Eye said...

The Democrats and Republicans, are two sides of the same coin.

Actually democrats are the main obstacle, to their being a revolutionary movement in the US.

3:14 AM  
Blogger minifig said...

OK, you win.

7:14 AM  
Blogger Newfred said...

Your final sentence more or less persuaded me. Keep up the good work. The question still remains though: how would you change the situation? How would you make a difference in America and the world in spite of these considerable limitations?

8:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really dont understand y people like u dont just leave. It seams like you have no love for this country, you acctually despise it. So I dont get y u dont just find yourself a nice comunist country to live in where your not responsible for your own failure.

7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Bill Clinton was an Eisenhower Republican, I hope that Hillary is too. That was the best economic time we had in American history. He was better than Franklin Roosevelt. We need the Clintons in the White House again. I look forward to eight more years of Clinton/Eisenhower Republicanism. Charles Miller, BA, MA

1:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home