Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 6

In their current campaign to secure a third term in the White House, in violation of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which limits U.S. Establishment politicians who become the U.S. president to two terms in office), the Clintons are claiming that a third Clinton Administration in Washington, D.C. will bring democratic political “change” to U.S. society. Yet as the following column items from Downtown indicate, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

322 Days After The Clintons’ Inauguration: Where’s The Change?

Bill “NAFTA” Clinton was very eager to wheel-and-deal in order to push through Congress the Trilateral Commission-conceived NAFTA pact last month [November 1993]. But 322 days after the Clintons’ inauguration, they’re still not too popular with either U.S. labor or members of their own generation. Nor have the Clintons yet freed Leonard Peltier.

As a practitioner of the “politics of generational treason,” Bill Clinton has always been more interested in pleasing elderly members of the U.S. Establishment than in either prosecuting people responsible for JFK’s death, abolishing the CIA or providing apartments by Christmas [1993] for homeless people in the United States. The “change” the Clintons seem to want to impose on us is a new kind of economy in which U.S. labor will be “re-trained” for dull, low-wage service jobs and “micro-managed” by classist yuppie democratic wheeler-dealers like “Slick Willie” [and his wife, Hillary].

Ironically, both President Bill Clinton and [then] Secretary of Labor Reich are actually the ones who need to be retrained by U.S. organized labor, in order to rid them of their classist, Oxford-Yale-developed, corporate mentalities.

(Downtown 12/8/93)

336 Days After The Clintons’ Inauguration: Where’s The Change?

Under the Southern Democratic Administration of Bill “NAFTA” Clinton [and his wife, Hillary], the number of jobless African-American workers continues to rise. Between September 1993 and November 1993, for instance, the official unemployment rate for African-American workers in the U.S. jumped from 12 percent to 12.5 percent as a result of the Clinton Administration’s economic policies. In Michigan, the official unemployment rate increased from 6.7 percent in October 1993 to 7 percent in November 1993. And in Los Angeles—scene of the 1992 urban rebellion—the official jobless rate of 9.4 percent is the same as it was when Bill Clinton was elected in November 1992.

Despite his past ties to Nixon and the Republican Party’s right-wing, the apparently corrupt way he accumulated his billion-dollar fortune and the reactionary role he played in violating the democratic rights and civil liberties of marijuana-users and drug dealers in Texas, the [then-] maverick Billionaire Perot is beginning to look more like “The FDR of the 1990s” in some ways, ironically, 336 days after the Clintons’ inauguration.

With a straight face, Bill Clinton recently [in late 1993] went through the required ritual of assuring the CIA that he wasn’t going to use his presidential power to question the apparent agreed-upon JFK assassination cover-story that “Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.” Yet even CBS News had to concede [in late 1993] that 90 percent of the people in the U.S. now believe that President Kennedy was eliminated by a conspiracy—despite all the official denials.

As we celebrate yet another Christmas without world peace and enter 1994 without freedom for the majority of humanity, the demand for radical democratic change within U.S. society in the 1990s has still not been met by the U.S. Establishment and the Trilateral Commission’s Rodham-Clinton Administration. And more and more people are likely to get hip to that fact in 1994. Happy holiday!

(Downtown 12/22/93)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 7