I’m just a wee lad of 24 years, but everything I can gather of the male Clinton seemed to align with my personal views (moderate libertarian). Socially liberal (unlike some current libs that may be anti SSM or pro-life), fiscally responsible, and made fiscally conservative adjustments to the welfare system and, often held against him, cut defense spending). Any arguments agreeing or against? Yet again, I wasn’t terribly mature during his reign.
Is that how he says his name when he wants to attract the ladies?
Bill Clinton moderated himself right down real fast when he got in office. He is an adept political chameleon and he could have gone any number of ways. When he first got into office, he announced Hillary as his co-president and launched a task-force to reform US healthcare. He had lots of social initiatives in mind as well like gays in the military which got reduced to “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
My point is that he did make himself into quite the moderate after the first half of his first term but that was largely created by outside influences. The results weren’t terrible from a libertarian perspective but it hardly seems right to trumpet him as an adherent to the philosophy when he didn’t come by it naturally.
Yes and no.
He was pro-free trade, open markets, etc., which is definitely a libertarian (and Republican), rather than Democratic, trait.
He didn’t do much in the way of welfare retrenchment, though- more like reorganization. Absolute spending increased slightly; spending as a portion of GDP was reduced, but that had more to do with GDP growth than anything. which would likely be the first thing on the agenda if a true libertarian was in power.
He had mild interventionist tendencies- enough to go into Kosovo, not crazy enough to invade Iraq- definitely non-libertarian.
You can’t really call him a libertarian at all. The only area in which he was absolutely in line with a libertarian ideal was free trade.
He announced Hilary as co-president? That was clever. :rolleyes:
Make all the digs you like but Bush outspent Clinton in discretionary (+35%), defense and nondefense (+27%) spending. Isn’t that the big drumbeat with Republicans & Libertarians, smaller government?
His views as a Governor weren’t a lot different than when he was President so I’m not sure what that remark meant.
“He became a leading figure among the New Democrats, a branch of the Democratic Party that called for welfare reform and smaller government, a policy supported by both Democrats and Republicans” and a strong economy.
I’m not sure what the libertarian perspective is, but I’d call him a moderate Democrat.
The quintessential Centrist, in my opinion. Libertarian sympathies, perhaps. But leanings? No.
Hmm… let me expand just a bit, so my post doesn’t seem so cryptic. I say no leanings because Clinton (like most politicians) operated from an ethic of political expediency. Libertarians operate from an ethic of noncoercion. In other words, Clinton, for example, signed the anti-welfare legislation, not because he was convinced by arguments from Austrian economists, but because it forged a compromise.
I wasn’t making a dig at Bill Clinton. I was serious that his early time in office was very different than what it later came to be. Hillary as co-president wasn’t a joke. There was very real talk and marketing of that around the time.
Sorry, if I took it the wrong way. 
I don’t belong to the Clinton fan club, but I voted for him and thought he was a fairly good President considering. I wasn’t a big fan of his early presidency either but probably for different reasons than you.
I consider myself a liberal Democrat and Clinton was the closest I’ll ever come to voting Republican. I wasn’t a fan of his welfare reform or NAFTA. I thought his handling of Joycelyn Elders was disgraceful. In spite all the opposition he received from congress during his first term he did a good job. The guy had flaws, no question about it.
I’d agree with that.
Bush being fiscally insane does not make Bill a libertarian.
Clinton was no libertarian. His refusal to clean house at the Justice Department after Waco (and Ruby Ridge, although that happened on GHW Bush’s watch) should point to that. His support for gun control was also non-libertarian.
As mentioned above, Bill Clinton’s political philosophy was whatever could get Bill Clinton elected or high opinion poll numbers. Would reducing government help Bill Clinton’s poll numbers? Then Clinton reduced government. Would more government spending help his poll numbers? Then Clinton wanted more government spending. Clinton had no political philosophy outside raw, naked ambition.
You mean he paid attention to what tax payers wanted him to do and acted accordingly?
How horrible!
Yes, indeed. I don’t believe in government by poll. I don’t think the electorate should have their every whim satisfied by government. It may be a popular strategy (almost by definition), but I prefer that politicians who have principles other than “give the masses whatever they want!”
No, I don’t either. But I’d like a politician to remember that he’s put in office on the taxpayers dime and to the best of his ability make decisions that are fairly representative of the general population. Sometimes that means making decisions that aren’t based on your own personal principles (if you have them) or your own agenda.
I hardly think Clinton governed by opinion poll. NAFTA was pretty unpopular with a lot of democrats. Frankly, I could never understand the Clinton hatred from the get go. As a President, he made more bipartisian decisions than most Presidents.
He made the Republicans look bad (not that that was hard ;)). If Clinton was a Republican President who did the exact same thing, Rush Limbaugh would have championed putting his face on Mt. Rushmore.
And he also signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which I’d say is non-libertarian.
The same could be said, in reverse, about George W. Bush. He’s done a lot that should make liberals quite happy – more federal involvement in education, expanding the Medicare entitlement, huge increases in funding for education, etc. However, because he’s a Republican, he gets no credit for liberals for these things. It’s the same thing that happened with Clinton.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” doesn’t strike me as particularly libertarian, nor does a government take over of the health care industry, and those are two of the things he was best known for.
Free trade and welfare reform, which are the only libertarian things I can associate with him, were things he either accomplished with the aid of Republicans, or took credit for after fighting the Republicans on it and losing.
That’s an interesting point, but doomed to throw this thread to GD - or the Pit.
Regards,
Shodan
I think the word you’re looking for is “libertine.” 
Clinton’s moderation came after the shellacking his party got in the next election. Republicans swept into power in Congress, and he had to play ball with them. For instance, he initial opposed welfare reform. But once the political winds were blowing in that direction, he very cleverly co-opted it as his own and signed the welfare reform bill. It’s typical Clinton - if it worked, he could take all the credit for it. If it failed, well, it was the dastardly Republicans that rammed it down his throat.
But whatever the reason, in the end Bill Clinton’s tenure as president was basically one of centrist social policy and moderately pro-market fiscal policy. Give the guy props for that.