What do you think?
Rate this book
Clinton's Legacy: A New Democrat In Governance
As Clinton left office there was little consensus even among Democrats as to the significance of his political legacy. He was keen to stress that enduring changes had been made to American society. Critics, however, were less convinced that Clintonism had developed an integrated vision of governance. This book examines whether the Clinton experience does illustrate the value of the New Democrat and Third Way agenda.
207 pages, Hardcover
First published December 6, 2001
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 30, 2024
A beautiful book suited for all audiences - ranging from those who know little of Clinton's tenure other than Monica Lewinsky and his playing of the saxophone like myself to the seasoned political scientist.
I found out some pretty insane things about Clinton's term - he taxed the rich and their benefits, raised corporate income tax and serious amounts of tax were suddenly imposed on the population. No welfare state though, and he still made cuts to Medicare funding. Where did the money go?
Clinton still hoped to make serious legislative change in the healthcare area, although not quite to the point to 'socialise' medicine and still didn't appease the liberal-left when it came to substantive reform.
It's crazy how national healthcare expenditure observed the following trend in US GDP: 5.1% in 1960; 7.1% in 1970; 8.9% in 1980; 12.2% in 1990; and 13.4% in 1992. Interesting how this trend meant that employer spending on wages/salaries controlling for inflation went up just 1%, but for HEALTH benefits it went up 163%!
He also seriously reduced the federal deficit but not radically enough (albeit this is according to Waddan). Overall though, his Health Security plan was a great compromise between market-oriented and government-centred reform ideas.
It's crazy how for 2 years of Clinton's presidency, he was on track to building a foundational American welfare state, and then the classic stupidity of American scepticism got in the way... and gutted that plan like a fish as it forced Clinton to make concessions. That American stupidity we Europeans all laugh at cost them a welfare state. That, is again according to Waddan. Couldn't find a source.
So many remarkable analyses though - some of my favourites:
"In the British instance it is clear how New Labour fought to establish its hold over both the Labour Party's machinery and its ideology. This control is, of course, not complete but in a series of landmark battles, both organisational and symbolic (notably the removal of Clause IV of the original party constitution), New Labour leaders asserted their authority. The same cannot be said of the New Democrats in the US. The DLC did make a conscious decision in the late 1980s to organise at local as well as elite level, which did extend its influence in the party's internal affairs, but American party structures simply do not allow for the type of control exercised by Blair and company in the UK. Moreover, it is not just party structures which need to be taken into consideration but the wider institutional environment as well. If Prime Minister Blair proposes legislation in the guise of New Labour then, however much old Labour may dislike the idea, it is still almost certain to become law even if many Labour MPs are kicking and screaming as they vote for it. However, as was demonstrated on several significant occasions, President Clinton had no such equivalent power over Democrat members of Congress."
I found out some pretty insane things about Clinton's term - he taxed the rich and their benefits, raised corporate income tax and serious amounts of tax were suddenly imposed on the population. No welfare state though, and he still made cuts to Medicare funding. Where did the money go?
Clinton still hoped to make serious legislative change in the healthcare area, although not quite to the point to 'socialise' medicine and still didn't appease the liberal-left when it came to substantive reform.
It's crazy how national healthcare expenditure observed the following trend in US GDP: 5.1% in 1960; 7.1% in 1970; 8.9% in 1980; 12.2% in 1990; and 13.4% in 1992. Interesting how this trend meant that employer spending on wages/salaries controlling for inflation went up just 1%, but for HEALTH benefits it went up 163%!
He also seriously reduced the federal deficit but not radically enough (albeit this is according to Waddan). Overall though, his Health Security plan was a great compromise between market-oriented and government-centred reform ideas.
It's crazy how for 2 years of Clinton's presidency, he was on track to building a foundational American welfare state, and then the classic stupidity of American scepticism got in the way... and gutted that plan like a fish as it forced Clinton to make concessions. That American stupidity we Europeans all laugh at cost them a welfare state. That, is again according to Waddan. Couldn't find a source.
So many remarkable analyses though - some of my favourites:
"In the British instance it is clear how New Labour fought to establish its hold over both the Labour Party's machinery and its ideology. This control is, of course, not complete but in a series of landmark battles, both organisational and symbolic (notably the removal of Clause IV of the original party constitution), New Labour leaders asserted their authority. The same cannot be said of the New Democrats in the US. The DLC did make a conscious decision in the late 1980s to organise at local as well as elite level, which did extend its influence in the party's internal affairs, but American party structures simply do not allow for the type of control exercised by Blair and company in the UK. Moreover, it is not just party structures which need to be taken into consideration but the wider institutional environment as well. If Prime Minister Blair proposes legislation in the guise of New Labour then, however much old Labour may dislike the idea, it is still almost certain to become law even if many Labour MPs are kicking and screaming as they vote for it. However, as was demonstrated on several significant occasions, President Clinton had no such equivalent power over Democrat members of Congress."
February 8, 2019
Like many books about the US, this focuses inordinately on US domestic politics, to such a degree that there really isn't much sense of what is happening. There is a lot of stuff about oh the Democrats vis-a-vis their past record, and internal party politics, and not a lot about what happened, how the US was doing, or the big picture. It takes for granted that the reader is already familiar with all the details of this period, because it doesn't say much for itself.
For me, this wasn't a satisfying book, though for some people this will be interesting. The writing style is alright, its not a pain to read, but its a bit tedious.
For me, this wasn't a satisfying book, though for some people this will be interesting. The writing style is alright, its not a pain to read, but its a bit tedious.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews