In the world of arts and entertainment, this has been a revealing week.
As Harvey Weinstein has been rightfully crucified in the arena of public
opinion for years of unchallenged predatory behavior toward young female
actresses, Liberal America has rushed to both condemn and feign ignorance and
shock that one of their loyal benefactors could have been committing such loathsome
acts underneath their noses. While it was easy for us to scowl blame toward
Donald Trump’s repulsive behaviour, Weinstein was reminder that the gross
actions of rich powerful men know no political boundaries.
But with incredible tone deafness as this much-needed introspection among
liberal art types occurs, the National Book Foundation
announced that among its presenters at next month’s award gala was former
President Bill Clinton. In its flowery description that went along with this
announcement, we are reminded that Clinton was elected twice while leading the
country through its longest period of economic expansion and that he was now
doing good work through his foundation, “building more resilient communities”
by improving people’s health, strengthening the economy and protecting the
environment.
I don’t even know where to begin, but it is totally infuriating.
Of all weeks to announce Clinton as a presenter and then do what
everyone has been doing for decades in regards to Weinstein (which is to
pretend that there is no problem here), the decision to be so blasé about this
is incredibly revealing about the ongoing political ineptness of the literary
community in the United States, loving to rub shoulders with power even when
their actions (both politically and personally) should disqualify these figures
from any adulation.
Clinton The
President
In the midst of the despair that looms over the horrible proto-fascist presidency
of Donald Trump, it is easy for memories of the Clinton presidency between 1992
and 2000 to become selective, recalling the prolonged economic growth while
forgetting the problematic elements that came along with his time in office.
Bill Clinton rode to power in the midst of economic recession and brought
with him the new Democratic Party orthodoxy of third way centrism that sought
to distance the party from the New Deal policies and allegiances with minority
voters (at least in terms of advocating policies that would benefit neglected
communities, they were fine taking their votes).
Continuing the Reagan and Bush I administrations embrace of neoliberal
economic orthodoxy of disdain toward the welfare state and adoration of the
market, Clinton forged ahead with the dismantling of many welfare programs the
Democratic Party had brought in decades earlier and attempted to further trade
liberalization through the negotiation of massive multinational trade pacts.
NAFTA and the emergence of the WTO were seen as great accomplishments of
the Clinton Administration, as was the massive deregulation of finance with the
repeal of Glass-Steagall that the administration oversaw, actions that many
now blame for the loose regulatory framework that allowed for the 2008
Great Recession to occur.
In terms of dismantling the welfare state, the Clinton supported
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which Clinton bragged would “end
welfare as we know it.” As noted in a Jacobin
piece last year:
The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act ended traditional welfare by turning a federal
entitlement, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), into block grants,
or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF established tougher
mandates on poor single mothers and gave states more flexibility in how they
spent welfare dollars (opening the door for increased discrimination against
minorities).
It prohibits anyone from receiving assistance
for more than two consecutive years or for more than five years over the course
of their life. The act also requires aid recipients to be employed, in most
cases, at least thirty hours a week to get their welfare checks, amounting to
an hourly wage well below the legal minimum.
Once recipients reach their program time limit,
TANF forces them even further into the labor market with little consideration
of how they could ensure their children are properly cared for or whether paid
employment will earn them an adequate wage. Many more are not even able to find
work. A 2012 report by the Urban Institute concluded that for recipients with
barriers to employment, TANF did little to help them find jobs.
Sweeping in scope, TANF contains clauses to
bolster marriage, mandate job training, and offer parenting classes. The
“flexibility” that was a hallmark of the welfare reform bill enabled states to
shift welfare funds away from direct cash assistance toward child care programs
or subsidies for companies hiring welfare recipients, meaning that a greater
portion of public welfare dollars went to the private sector.
In addition to the draconian economic policies that there is the 1994 Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (that was passed and signed before the
GOP retook Congress during that year’s midterm election), which became a huge
bone of contention during the 2016 primary battle between Hillary Clinton and
Bernie Sanders and that Bill Clinton has been forced to apologize for. This
legislation allocated huge resources to the construction of private prisons,
expanded the number of capital crimes that could result in the death penalty
and began an era of targeted policing aimed largely at African American
community. The most egregious elements of the legislation have been greatly
discussed and were part of Ava DuVernay’s
fantastic documentary 13th.
So while Clinton was pushing economic and social policies that largely
hurt the poor and marginalized, he also became an aggressive advocate for a
muscular humanitarian military strategy. Clinton continued the policy of
aggressive sanctions against Iraq throughout the 1990s, and although the
numbers of deaths as a result is an area of contention, it is undoubtedly the
case that thousands died unnecessarily
as a
result of policy. Whatever the figure was, the callousness of the Clinton
administration toward the human cost of the policy was famously articulated by
his Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who insisted that the human deaths
was a price worth paying.
Other questionable actions under the Clinton presidency included the
bombing
of a medicine factory in Sudan and the bombing of Serbia over Kosovo, a
move that foreshadowed the even more aggressive military adventurism of the
Bush II years.
Clinton the Harasser
Clinton’s presidency is often remembered not for the policy choices he
made but for the lurid sexual affair he engaged in with a young intern, Monica
Lewinsky, which he then lied about prior to confessing. This resulted in a
three year circus, where the obnoxiously hypocritical GOP impeached but failed
to convict him before the US Senate. That the campaign against Clinton was
partly led by “serial child molester” Dennis Hastert cannot be forgotten.
And as Clinton fought off the GOP attack, many Liberals got behind him,
disgusted by the anti-sex Republican zealots. Yet in doing so the real
problematic behaviour that Clinton got away with for decades was forgotten.
Vanity Fair ran a
long piece
in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal, detailing
the history of allegations of sexual harassment against Clinton. I don’t want
to detail the multiple stories of women having negative encounters with Clinton
or rehash that some resulted in out of court settlements, but as the Liberal
establishment in the wake of Weinstein is finally realizing that this behaviour
has been forgiven too long why is it that Clinton gets a free ride?
National Book Awards
I love books and book awards. The National Book Awards are one of the
most prestigious prizes in
literary circles and I like the idea of words and
novels getting this kind of love.
I also really like what Lisa Lucas, the current executive director for
the National Book Foundation that gives the prize, has done with the foundation
since taking over a couple of years ago. She is one of the loudest voices in the
literary world asking us to take more time exploring authors long marginalized
by the literati that was more comfortable reading rehashed tales by old white
men and ignoring younger and more creative voices among communities of colour.
To see so many writers of colour and women come to the forefront of the
National Book Awards since Lucas’ tenure began is a good thing.
That is why it is so disappointing to see without a second thought the
embrace of Bill Clinton. Clinton the politician advanced policies that
disenfranchised the poorest Americans and undermined communities of colour. His
foreign policy continued the imperial march of dehumanizing nations deemed our
enemy while exerting muscular strength that resulted in so many of the poorest
(against mostly people of colour) dying in exchange of US international dominance.
Clinton the person engaged in repugnant behaviour that we still see rampant be
it in the halls of political power or the offices of entertainment studios.
Despite all this, Clinton was largely given a free ride while he was
President. The Liberal artist and literati community fell head over heals for
him, embracing the lure of power and while forgetting the ills and crimes
Clinton is responsible for him.
Toni Morrison’s
famous quote that Clinton was “our first Black president” comes off as
incredibly irresponsible considering the harm his policies had on African American
communities across the country.
That this uncritical and sycophantic adulation repeats itself today, in
the midst of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, is quite sad. I can only hope that
there are enough readers who are similarly repulsed by this decision and call
on Lucas and National Book Foundation to rescind their invitation.
