From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Clinton? NOT LIBERAL? was (Re: Prediction: Rush Limbaugh has hit his peak; He will)
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:13:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.202907.4683@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.071417.27877@news.columbia.edu> dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.010713.18503@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>
>>>I would like to see your evidence on this -- direct evidence, policy-wise,
>>>that he is a Liberal.  I will furnish some evidence he is a centrist.
>>>1) He supports NAFTA; 2) He did not outright oppose the Gulf War (see below)
>>>3) supports a capital-gains like tax cut for business under certain
>>>circumstances 4) supports the death penalty...need I go on?
>>>Of course, some of his positions are more liberal, but then that is the
>>>definition of a centrist -- some of his positions are conservative, so
>>>liberal, some moderate.  As Gary Hart said, "I look neither left nor
>>>right but forward."
>>
>>1) He supports NAFTA, but only with environmental restrictions tacked
>>on.  Without going into details on the foolishness of that, the
>>addition of enviro-regulation would, without a doubt, qualify him
>>as a liberal.
>
>Environmental protection is hardly an issue of liberal vs. conservative.  It
>is an issue of responsible people vs. irresponsible people.  But even Milton
>Friedman, staunch opponent of big government and federal regulation, agrees
v>that the government has a role to play in protecting the environment.  His
>favored approach differs from the current approach in that he prefers "green
>taxes" to regulation, that is, tax certain raw material or finished products
>in such a way as to make environmentally harmful practices relatively
>unprofitable, and environmentally sound practices relatively profitable.  But
>he doesn't oppose environmental protection by any means.  Incidentally, "green
>taxes" are favored by the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Bill Clinton
>was a founding member, and the chairman before his campaign began.  They would
>like to use them to replace some portion of the income tax.  Tim Wirth, the
>senator from Colorado, and a leading environmentalist, who is probably being
>appointed Energy Secretary, favors consumption taxes over production taxes.
>(I heard him speak at an environmental policy conference in Aspen last summer,
>and that's what he said.)  I don't know - sounds centrist to me, if not
>downright conservative.


I agree that conservatives are for saving the environment.  As with
most issues, the right and the left agree on the end, but not the
means.  I find it odd that Uncle Miltie wants to apply incentives to
this issue, but it sounds reasonable to me.  I should have been more
specific in my criticism; namely, that I believe it is a liberal
tendency to overregulate, often on issues such as the enivironment, to
the extent that the cost-benefit relationship is ignored.

Environmentally damaging practices should by no means permitted to an
unreasonable degree, nor should they be eradicated in a draconian
fashion to the detriment of excessive loss of profitability.  While
this sounds vague, NAFTA will probably serve to make my point more
clear.  

If we impose excessive enivironmental conditions on NAFTA, it
will be difficlt for the fledgling companies in Mexico to prosper.
Because they will have to operate on lower profit margin to compete
with well-established American countries, extensive restriction will
seriously affect their viability.  With those American companies now
able to reduce their overhead further by using Mexican labor, the
pinch will be even tighter.  If we wait to impose any restrictions,
that will allow those new businesses to get off the ground, and then
we can turn to the environment.  

No doubt some of you are aghast at the reasoning, but I will present
it thus: Everybody gains with the current NAFTA; since gains to
American business have not been disputed in this thread, I will not
discuss it, but if new Mexican enterprise is not allowed to gain a
foothold and begin producing wealth, jobs, and a stronger economy in
Mexico, then NAFTA will not benefit Mexico or the US nearly to its
capability.  If Mexico becomes richer, it's clearly better for them,
and the US gains because they'll buy more of our stuff.  

With the restrictions, US will already gain by way of our companies
using cheaper labor will allow those companies to expand, and
therefore higher more workers back in the US.  Mexico will still
benefit indirectly from the employment of a portion of their labor
force, but for a terrific expansion, wealth must grow from within.

The environment will not become irreparably damaged in ten or so years
of freedom from restriction, and at that time the technology will not
only clean the environment better, it will clean it more cheaply.
Protective devices to prevent further damage can be put in at the
later date also, with similar gains in efficiency and cost.  So, I see
an altered NAFTA, with environmentqal restriction, as attempting a
proper goal without considering the exigency of enterprise.
Over-regulation is the liberal slant I see to the NAFTA that Bill
Clinton supports.



>
>>2) He didn't really take one side or the other.  He could've been
>>consistent and opposed it as he did the war in Vietnam, but I believe
>>he felt it would damage his position with the large percentage of
>>Americans who were in favor of the war.  In other words, his ambiguous
>>statement allowed him to take both sides of the issue, thereby not
>>offending anyone and keeping with as broad a base of support as
>>possible. This doesn't prove or disprove his liberalism, neither does
>>it demonstrate moderation.  An unclear stance, in fact, just makes him
>>look a little shifty.
>
>>3)The under certain circumstances part makes me somewhat suspicious.
>>Data, anyone?  Capital gains reductions is, though, I would agree,
>>fiscally conservative.
>
>>4)Death penalty?  Look, he's from Arkansas: to be Arkansas' governor,
>>he had to be, and if he changed his mind upon running for
>>President...to wit, no clear evidence there.
>
>So, he's from a conservative state, and so the fact that he's taken
>conservative positions doesn't indicate that he really isn't a liberal.
>Right.  What will it take until you believe anything?

The death penalty does not demonstrate one way or another of what
political flavor is Bill Clinton.  He may really believe in the death
penalty, but I believe his position could be necessitated by politics.
To wit, it does not present uncontestably that he is moderate, which
is what you're trying to establish.  Having worked closely with a few
Republicans here in New York, I can tell you that they have adopted
rather liberal stances on many issues to win office.  This does not
prove Clinton is doing the same--I'm just explaining the background to
my conclusion.

>>So, yes, I think you need go on, with more definite examples of
>>Clinton's moderate stance.
>
>Sounds like he did pretty well at demonstrating Clinton's moderate stance.
>The best you did in proving him liberal was saying that he might really be
>more liberal than his positions would seem to indicate.  (You tried to show
>him to be a liberal on the environment point, but I showed that you were
>wrong, therefore it wasn't the best you did.)
>
>  - Dave Borden
>    borden@m5.harvard.edu


I'd like to pursue this further, because I believe it is difficult to
determine exactly where the new Pres. falls politically.  Obviously
that will be borne out by his decisions in office, but as of now,
there is too much of Bill Clinton that smacks of the liberal.

Because I believe our political stances are more a philosophy than a
simple toggle-switch that we flick upon the arrival of each new issue,
more of Bill Clinton's phrasing, approach, and chosen colleagues lead
me more to liberal than conservative.  In other words, based on the
limited evidence we have at this point: he sounds like a liberal,
comes on like a liberal, but will he act like a liberal?  It is to
resolve this question that I anxiously await his presidency.  Mind
you, I am not convinced that he is not moderate; rather, my current
impressions do not lead me to that conclusion.
David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh