---

---

Opinion Editorial
Wednesday, March 3, 1999
Clinton's Critics On The Left	There is no question that conservatives are very dispirited these days. This is primarily due to Bill Clinton's high poll ratings and their own failure to score any points against him during the impeachment debacle. Indeed, one leading conservative activist, Paul Weyrich, recently called upon fellow conservatives to basically give up hope of achieving any meaningful policy goals in the current political environment. Weyrich might have a more optimistic outlook, however, if he read some of the attacks on Bill Clinton coming from the left these days. Although conservatives universally view Clinton as a captive of the political left, this has never been true of those on the left, who have always viewed him with deep suspicion. Although forced by necessity to make an alliance with him, they have never trusted him, fearing (rightly) that he will sell them out in a second to advance his popularity. Leftists continue to defend Clinton in public, but in their own publications they are scathing in their condemnation. Indeed, some leftists go so far as to portray Clinton as a closet right-winger whose policies are virtually indistinguishable from those of the Reagan Administration. This is the theme of a new book, "Surrender: How the Clinton Administration Completed the Reagan Revolution," (University of Michigan Press) by liberal economist Michael Meeropol. Meeropol is devastating in his criticism of Clinton for repudiating traditional liberal economic policies and pursuing those that are conservative. Following are a few points where Meeropol believes Clinton has abandoned the left: Balanced budget. Historically liberals have used budget deficits to expand the role of government in society. By caving-in to Republican demands to balanced the federal budget, Meeropol believes that Clinton handcuffed the liberal agenda and even reversed it. In fact, government spending as a share of the economy has fallen during the Clinton years from 22.5 percent in fiscal year 1992 to 19.7 percent this year. Tax cuts. Although conservatives continue to bemoan the minuscule size of the 1997 tax cut, Meeropol and other leftists bemoan the fact that there was any tax cut at all. They view it as abject surrender to the right-wing, especially the inclusion of a cut in the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent. Instead of cutting taxes, the left believes that spending should have been increased. Moreover, tax cuts worsen the distribution of income, in their view. Welfare reform. Of course, the left is apoplectic over Clinton's signing of the welfare reform bill in 1996. To them, it represents nothing less than total abandonment of the poor and implementation of a miserly, hard-hearted policy toward society's least fortunate. The fact that no Republican president could have ever achieved the abolition of welfare as entitlement, as Clinton did, only heightens the left's apoplexy. Tight money. Clinton's reappointment of Republican Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve basically guaranteed a continuation of conservative macroeconomic policy, in the left's eyes. This has meant, in their view, giving low inflation a priority over low unemployment. Also, the benefits of low inflation mainly benefit the rich because it leads to lower interest rates and thus higher bond and stock prices. In his latest budget, Clinton continues his conservative ways, the left believes. A February 8 editorial in the far left magazine The Nation calls it "arch-conservative," by paying down the debt for Social Security and increasing defense spending rather than expanding social programs. This may not make Clinton a conservative in the eyes of most conservatives, but anyone who irritates the left as much as he does must be doing something right. Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, March 3, 1999. Home |  Support Us |  All Issues |  Social Security Debate Central |  Contact Us