eyeball_kid
Member
President Carter also paved the way for the craft beer revolution by deregulating the beer industry (leftover stuff from Prohibition), thus making small breweries possible.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How is Bill Clinton's presidency perceived in the US today?
- Thread starter Fritz
- Start date
- Status
President Carter also paved the way for the craft beer revolution by deregulating the beer industry (leftover stuff from Prohibition), thus making small breweries possible.
UK here and 36 (so a teenager for most of his term), I associate him with:
- The end of the cold war / pre "terror!" era, where times were optimistic
- Strongest US / UK relations ever, Blair and Clinton got on famously
- A good economy, both here and the US
- Presidential, like Obama, he just has gravitas, a great speaker
Generally, I have massive rose tinted glasses on for the mid - late 90's and he was a visible part of that era.
- The end of the cold war / pre "terror!" era, where times were optimistic
- Strongest US / UK relations ever, Blair and Clinton got on famously
- A good economy, both here and the US
- Presidential, like Obama, he just has gravitas, a great speaker
Generally, I have massive rose tinted glasses on for the mid - late 90's and he was a visible part of that era.
It's on iplayer too for those of us in the UK.
hurricanes
Member
Not American, but I've always thought that he was very lucky to ride the economy rising years and then not have to face consequences of his defect/some down right idiot policies when he was in the house. So I don't think his presidency would be perceived as well as it was and would only worsen in the future.
Never understand that "charismatic" +point for him either. Charismatic don't help running a country at all.
Never understand that "charismatic" +point for him either. Charismatic don't help running a country at all.
Bill was a charismatic guy who didn't really have much to do. American economy was doing well in the 90s because of the rise of the internet and such.
I guess he fucked up with NAFTA, although I'm not sure how that affected Canada so I can't say I really care about that.
Overall, a weak president IMO
I guess he fucked up with NAFTA, although I'm not sure how that affected Canada so I can't say I really care about that.
Overall, a weak president IMO
LOL, no.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The seeds of trickle down had already sprouted from years of Republican rule, but they were hidden by the tech boom which superfueled job growth and consumer spending in other areas.
People tend to forget just how discredited Liberalism / Democrats were untill Clinton both balanced the budget and oversaw the tech boom. Hell, they had less support than the teaparty minority currently musters, both in the beltway and around the nation.
TheFuzz
Member
It's always interesting to me when people discount both Reagan and Clinton for the economic upswing in the 90s. Depending on the day, one can be seen as a messiah while the other the worst thing to ever happen.
It's really hard to tell how great a president was until we observe their policy's results years after they've left. Personally, Clinton was a fine president who had a lot of factors in his favor that he ultimately had little to do with. NAFTA caused an immediate spike, but as time passes it's being seen more and more of a huge problem for us.
It's really hard to tell how great a president was until we observe their policy's results years after they've left. Personally, Clinton was a fine president who had a lot of factors in his favor that he ultimately had little to do with. NAFTA caused an immediate spike, but as time passes it's being seen more and more of a huge problem for us.
NAFTA is a larger benefit as time passes.
TheFuzz
Member
Depends on who you ask, some see it differently. I'm not staying my opinion, but a great percentage of Americans are against it.
Don't know about the US, but outside the US, at least in my region, it was the power time of America, they seemed untouchable. I mean, he had a mistress and still managed to keep the job and the economy just soared more. Clinton time was really great.
Of course, in time, it seemed like he just got lucky.
Of course, in time, it seemed like he just got lucky.
gutter_trash
Banned
Carter had a poor grasp on a multitude of domestic issues when it comes to energy, agriculture and the economy. Heck, Democratic Senators turned on him and ignored him.
the only good thing that came out of Carter's admin was achieving peace between Egypt and Israel
InaSnowBoundLand
Member
Activist left and far right think Americans are with them against free trade agreements.
Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
When asked, most Americans still support free trade agreements.
But in fact, there's evidence most American's don't care either way. A small minority screams loudly and hears itself in every corner -- this is an illusion.
Note: For Free Trade, support means support in rolling back free trade agreements.
Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
When asked, most Americans still support free trade agreements.
But in fact, there's evidence most American's don't care either way. A small minority screams loudly and hears itself in every corner -- this is an illusion.
Note: For Free Trade, support means support in rolling back free trade agreements.
A great percentage of people around the world (so, includes Americans) have no idea what NAFTA or TPP are/do.
Bolivar687
Banned
My sense is he's remembered for bringing peace and stability around the world and prosperity back at home. I definitely think it'll translate to votes for Hillary and she countered Trump nicely that she didn't just start thinking about solutions now, she and her husband did a pretty good job when he was in the White House.
Nikodemos
Member
Bears reminding that a large part of the black community supported the tougher on crime stance. They got duped by the CIA and thought the symptoms (the Crip/Blood violence, increased drug crime etc.) were the actual problem, when in reality the problem was the CIA's cocaine-based money-laundering scheme for South American insurgents.
I watched this in one of my political science classes, it was certainly entertaining. I'd recommend it as well.
ColdLasagna
Member
Activist left and far right think Americans are with them against free trade agreements.
Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
When asked, most Americans still support free trade agreements.
But in fact, there's evidence most American's don't care either way. A small minority screams loudly and hears itself in every corner -- this is an illusion.
Note: For Free Trade, support means support in rolling back free trade agreements.
Based on this it doesn't seem like useful political strategy to attack Clinton on NAFTA which was Bill Clinton's baby. It doesn't seem like the majority even view it as a bad thing.
Yeah, most of it is people blaming inevitable things, or things that are more related to automation or to China'a growing economy to NAFTA. Also, for all the Midwesterners who hate NAFTA, people on the US-Mexico border love it. The trade it produces is the lifeblood of the economy down there.
Trade is a weird issue, because most are supportive, but those aren't are much more passionate. Its also something few understand well, so voters are very easily swayed by leaders. There have been huge swings among Republican voters against trade coinciding with Trump's attacks on it, because a ton of people who don't understand it just look to their party to signal if it's good or bad.
This is important too. Both sides at the time believed that tough on crime was the answer. The detractors were a pretty small group. The negative consequences weren't well understood, and they didn't have the data yet to see that crime was already declining on its own. The crime bill was a huge mistake, but it was an understandable mistake in its time.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Clinton's presidency is a cautionary tale of the limits of liberalism in the 90s, and the short leash democrats had. He became president with far less than 50% of the national vote. Yet despite that decided to pursue what was at the time a liberal agenda. It backfired, his first two years were largely a collection of failures and half starts which culminated in the republican takeover in 1994.
I tend to dismiss most liberal talk about Clinton because it's always done with no context. As if he walked into office and wanted to be held hostage by the far right. As if high crime wasn't a major problem that needed to be addressed, the political discussions that were happening in inner cities at the time, the community support the Crime bill had, etc.
Clinton was president during a center right period and was forced to govern accordingly. He presided over a very successful economic period in which millions were lifted out of poverty and every demographic made income progress. He put Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
His corporate decisions weren't good. His personal failures were (and still are) disgusting. Welfare reform was a betrayal. It wasn't all rosy. But let's not pretend like Clinton was as conservative as Reagan, personally. A president is as effective as his congress. Clinton was dealt a terrible hand and did the best with it that he could.
I tend to dismiss most liberal talk about Clinton because it's always done with no context. As if he walked into office and wanted to be held hostage by the far right. As if high crime wasn't a major problem that needed to be addressed, the political discussions that were happening in inner cities at the time, the community support the Crime bill had, etc.
Clinton was president during a center right period and was forced to govern accordingly. He presided over a very successful economic period in which millions were lifted out of poverty and every demographic made income progress. He put Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
His corporate decisions weren't good. His personal failures were (and still are) disgusting. Welfare reform was a betrayal. It wasn't all rosy. But let's not pretend like Clinton was as conservative as Reagan, personally. A president is as effective as his congress. Clinton was dealt a terrible hand and did the best with it that he could.
As someone who is neither here nor there on Clinton and the Democratic "family" in general, I am saddened that Bill's presidency will never be scrutinized for what truly deserves to be, instead of this pointless garbage surrounding the blow job and his lie afterwards. I would've been much more militant in the face of that if I were in Bill's shoes, especially when it's the GOP who are railing against you. Clinton had every chance to take them to the cleaners over women's rights hypocrisies during that time and he didn't.
No, what Bill really should answer for is his inaction over Rwanda. Mogadishu wasn't pretty but making an effort to stop death and chaos should ALWAYS be treated with respect and patience and Bill got neither, yet he cowered in the face of trying to convince the voters that interference in these horrendous situations was the right thing to do.
Just don't tell the South what the skin color of the people we are trying to help is.....
No, what Bill really should answer for is his inaction over Rwanda. Mogadishu wasn't pretty but making an effort to stop death and chaos should ALWAYS be treated with respect and patience and Bill got neither, yet he cowered in the face of trying to convince the voters that interference in these horrendous situations was the right thing to do.
Just don't tell the South what the skin color of the people we are trying to help is.....
daTRUballin
Member
Can we also blame Clinton for not preventing 9/11 from happening when he could've? I remember reading that he actually had the chance to take out Bin Laden when he was president but he passed on the opportunity. But I also seem to remember reading that in order to do so, he had to order an air strike on a village where Bin Laden was located in, but there were also hundreds (or thousands, I don't quite remember) of innocent people residing there at the same time or something like that. So taking out Bin Laden also meant killing hundreds or maybe even thousands of innocents in the process, so he decided against it (and probably rightly so).
Is this actually true? Could someone more informed comment on this? Of course nobody at the time could've possibly known 9/11 was going to happen, but looking back on it now and knowing everything that has happened in the last 15 years, it seems like it would've been a tough decision to make.
Is this actually true? Could someone more informed comment on this? Of course nobody at the time could've possibly known 9/11 was going to happen, but looking back on it now and knowing everything that has happened in the last 15 years, it seems like it would've been a tough decision to make.
Good guy, not a good leader. Couldn't even work with a democratic supermajority in his 4 years.
- Status