Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About Jeff Jacoby
Jeff Jacoby has been an op-ed columnist for The Boston Globe since February 1994. Seeking a conservative voice, the Globe hired him away from the Boston Herald, where he had been chief editorial writer since 1987. In 1999, Jacoby became the first recipient of the Breindel Prize, a $10,000 prize for excellence in opinion journalism. In 2004, he received the Thomas Paine Award of the Institute for Justice, an award presented to journalists "who dedicate their work to the preservation and championing of individual liberty." http://www.jeffjacoby.com
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
If Hillary Runs, It Won’t Be As a Clinton Democrat
Jeff Jacoby
July 10, 2014
Amid the sound and fury that greeted the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, many liberals had sharp words for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the federal law in which the court's decision was grounded.

The left-wing Center for American Progress urged Congress to weaken the law's protections, and the New York Times editorial blog pointedly reminded voters that "acts of Congress can be overturned or changed if the right lawmakers are in place." The Freedom From Religion Foundation placed full-page ads insisting that "Congress must repeal RFRA." Hillary Clinton fed the bonfire, telling an audience in Aspen, Colo., that the court's application of the statute called to mind the type of "very unstable, antidemocratic" theocracies where men exploit "women and women's bodies...because of their religion, their sect, their tribe."

The law that Hillary Clinton and the others find so disturbing now was, of course, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Congress had passed the measure with overwhelming bipartisan support; Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were the lead Senate sponsors. "Let us never believe that the freedom of religion imposes on any of us some responsibility to run from our convictions," Clinton said at the signing ceremony. "Let us instead respect one another's faiths, fight to the death to preserve the rights of every American to practice [their] convictions." Most Democrats then, like most Republicans, shared that view.

Bill Clinton's religious freedom law isn't the only one that liberal Democrats today look upon with disdain.

It was Clinton who signed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1993 and the Defense of Marriage Act three years later. He and Vice President Al Gore fought hard for passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Clinton enacted the Helms-Burton Act, which extended and codified US economic sanctions against Cuba. And he signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, making it the policy of the United States "to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power." Two months later, Clinton ordered a major bombing campaign against Iraqi targets, saying Saddam "must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world" with weapons of mass destruction.

The last Democrat president signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and followed it up with four years of federal budget surpluses, the first in three decades. He signed tax relief that reduced the top capital-gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. But his most important domestic legislative achievement was unquestionably welfare reform. In his first State of the Union address, Clinton had promised to "end welfare as we know it," and, through a blend of work requirements and benefit limits, the welfare-reform law he endorsed in August 1996 did so. The nation's welfare caseload plummeted by 54 percent over the next decade, and as millions of mothers went to work, child poverty rates plunged too.

It is a commonplace that the Republican Party has become more right-wing in recent decades, as indeed it has. But can it reasonably be doubted that Democrats have moved even more sharply leftward? No would-be Democrat presidential candidate would think of running today on a platform of opposing gay marriage, toughening the Cuba embargo, restricting welfare eligibility, and chopping taxes on capital gains.

Bill Clinton is as popular among Democrats as he has ever been, maybe even more so. He commands whopping speaking fees. Candidates crave his endorsement. According to a recent poll, he is the most popular president of the past 25 years.

But a "Bill Clinton Democrat" wouldn't stand a chance in the contemporary Democrat Party. That includes Hillary Clinton, who has already -- in effect, if not always in explicit terms -- repudiated her husband's legacy on issues from gay rights to Cuba to taxes.

"Polarization is not a one-way street," observes public polling expert Andrew Kohut. Since Bill Clinton's time in office, the centrist "New Democrats" he epitomized have been marginalized. Democrats "are much more socially liberal than they were even a decade ago, more supportive of an activist government, more in favor of increased regulation of business," Kohut writes. And the momentum is with those who would push the party even further to the left.

Democrats love Bill Clinton. The priorities he advanced when he was in the White House? Not so much. The party declined to nominate his wife when she ran for president in 2008. It's not at all clear that Democrats have had a change of heart.

This article was originally featured in The Boston Globe. Refer to original article for related links and important documentation.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server