If it's been feeling a lot like 1994 for you lately, it's probably not only because of the apparent Republican ascendancy. After all, if you remember, few people predicted the stunning and historic GOP gains of 1994 and, today, people are racing not to
underestimate their coming gains. It seems that we Americans do learn from the past . . . that is, at least, when we're not too busy forgetting it.
One part of the past that refuses be forgotten is, of course, our old friend
Bill Clinton. In case you've been hiding under a rock or you neglected to respond to your invitation to Chelsea's fancy wedding this summer, that "force of nature" has been featuring prominently in the headlines ever since. It seems that the Democrats have turned to "the Big Dog" (and "first black President") in the wake of this President's falling poll numbers. The
NY Times speculates that it may be in order to remind voters of, well . . . better times.
I wonder if this will work. And, what's more, I wonder if the slick one even wants it work. Whenever Bubba talks, I assume he's revealing something of
his truth. But it's not usually to be found in the actual sentence structure or words that he utters. There's usually something back of it in operation; a cause and a purpose that's higher than the one immediately before the public. And what can be a higher cause in the Clinton universe than . . . well, Bill Clinton? So my question is always, "What's in it for him?" Why is he speaking out, and why now.
Even the
New York Times poses this question as though it were obligatory; though, obviously, they provide a sympathetic explanation that shows how much they are pining for a new slice of hope:
And there is something in it for Mr. Clinton, too. Any microphone or
tape recorder is a two-fer for him, giving him a chance to talk up his
global works, as well as discuss politics. On Monday, for example, he
urged donors to give more so he can hire more staff for the daunting
rebuilding efforts in Haiti.
So the next time you hear Bill Clinton waxing eloquent about Republican errors, Democrat virtues, and the way things really moved along swimmingly in those halcyon days of the 1990s, just remember: he's doing it for Haiti. Yeah, that's the ticket.
So my question is always, "What's in it for him?" Why is he speaking out, and why now.
With Billary, it's always about their joint political power. They are angling for another turn in the big house. It's just as simple as that.
If every american sent $1000 to haiti it would slice even deeper into domestic consumer spending, prompting a new wave of job cuts pushing unemployment up and setting the stage for a primary challenge by Hillary before she becomes too old for the presidency. (sarcasm intended)
Technically if Bill Clinton could raise 270billion for haiti, they would probably let him rewrite the constitution and become monarch. Actually I think Bill Clinton could rebuild Haiti for that much, the man is capable and well connected, and all in all a much better choice than papa doc. He would almost certainly pursue policies that would cut corruption in half no matter how jaundiced a view you take of him.
Bill Clinton is never going to raise the 270 billion that would give him a respectable shot at rebuilding Haiti, but I actually think Clinton could rebuild Haiti and have an easier job at it than the military/government will have with Afghanistan. If we are going to do nation building Clinton is the sort of person I would like to put in charge, and if we are going to do nation building why not do it after natural disasters, where the goodwill build up isn't held back by collateral dammage. Actually I think it would be interesting if Bill Gates teamed up with Clinton and we tried a private capital nation building. I also wish Gates would break out his patents on salters sink and deploy them around Haiti to fend off hurricanes. Newer buildings could also be built that do a better job of resisting earthquakes, but everything takes money and Haiti has none.
I don't know why folks always want to score pop shots against Clinton, and I don't see why Clinton's motives couldn't be pure in wanting to rebuild Haiti.
I always figured that opposition to liberals like Clinton wasn't founded on the premise that they were in bad faith, but that they wanted to use the power of the state to push for greater equality on someone elses tab.
You can color Clinton's motives in Haiti, and you can color Bush's motives in Africa. What is the sense? I think they are both acting out compassionate conservatism or compassionate liberalism. In both cases compassion that adds to the deficit, and must be judged either a legit state interest or not. You start talking about interests and you toss in the kitchen sink, a better haiti would be a trading partner...excetera. Poverty breeds desperation which finds outlets in drug cartels, radical religious and revolutionary movements, , it has a certain long term national security benefit. Goodwill is good, haitians aided will be touched and grateful.
Lobbyists for haliburton and all the depresed homebuilders and concrete pourers would love to start bringing in haitian re-building contracts. It would give them something to do until the U.S. real estate market works thru its inventory overhang.
Who knows exactly what Clinton can accomplish in Haiti?
In many ways it is more laudable than the nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan and more in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary, it is even more audaciously american if it can be accomplished with private funds.
"I don't see why Clinton's motives couldn't be pure in wanting to rebuild Haiti."
Clinton never had a pure motive in his life. He always calculates the political costs and benefits. Always.
I actually don't think that Bill Clinton (even Bill Clinton) is so completely cold and calculating that he doesn't really care about Haiti and is not really interested in helping them. I'm sure he does care and he is happy to help. And I applaud that. But only a fool would imagine that the reason he's happy to have his mug all of the TV these days TALKING ABOUT THE ELECTION is because he sees it as a way to promote his work in Haiti. Come on. That's about as believable as the idea that he's doing it to help the Democrats . . .
Bill Clinton is the river-boat gambler of American politics . . . the ultimate huckster. You can't help but almost be charmed by it. It's too much. Over the top and outrageous and it makes you smile even as you shake your head or, sometimes, your fist. But even as it is his charm it is also his fatal flaw. He forgets that the house always wins. He's gonna find out the hard way.