Analysis: why the Left crucified both the Clintons in 2008

Photo courtesy of CentralIllinois912project.com.

Whether they admit it or not, most semi-conscious Americans are now aware of how the Left dug up the right’s discredited talking points from the 1990s in its efforts to destroy Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary, well described by Melissa McEwan and Maureen McCluskey in their two-part post at the Guardian.

What hasn’t been so clearly elucidated has been why the Left, allied with Democratic party leaders and so-called liberal pundits, chose to crucify both Bill and Hillary Clinton in 2008.

In his post titled 20 Years Later: How Bill Clinton Saved Liberalism From Itself, Sean Wilentz, professor of history and social studies at Princeton and contributing editor of The New Republic, clearly outlines why the Left so disdained the Clinton Administration and would continue to show such contempt for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In a nutshell, according to Wilentz:

Clinton aimed to win back alienated traditional Democrats not by shifting to the right, as some pundits have claimed, but by retrieving basic political principles enunciated by FDR and those successful liberal Democrats who followed him.

Wilentz, the Princeton historian continues:

Nothing cost Clinton more political capital inside the left wing of his party than his advocacy of welfare reform. “We should expect people to move from welfare rolls to work rolls,” he proclaimed in his announcement speech. “We should give them the skills they need to succeed and then insist that they move into the workforce to become productive members of society.” These were fighting words to some liberal Democrats. Yet in 1936, in a rip-roaring attack on Republican callousness, FDR had defended those forced on the relief rolls while adding, “Of course we will provide useful work for the needy unemployed; we prefer useful work to the pauperism of a dole.” As a matter of policy, Clinton aimed to return liberalism to its basic ideas, not to forsake its ideals. And in doing so, he would help accomplish the crucial political task of removing from national politics one of the issues that had helped Republicans inflame the middle class against the poor, especially the minority poor, as well as against the Democratic Party.

In an era in which the government is mistrusted as never before and poll numbers for both the administration and congress continue to head south, Wilentz reports (emphasis mine):

In order to overcome the Reagan ascendency Democrats needed to advance the rights secured during the 1960s while returning to more traditional political bedrock. To a remarkable extent, Clinton delivered on that promise. In doing so, he made the nation comfortable once again with the idea that the well-being and future prospects of most Americans require strong and effective leadership by the federal government.

How’s that again? Strong and effective leadership by the federal government? !!