From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Hell has frozen over
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:03:48 GMT
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison


In article <1992Nov3.181227.7118@adobe.com> asente@adobe.com
(Paul Asente) writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.030238.2290@macc.wisc.edu>
>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>>In article <1992Nov2.222426.9810@adobe.com>
>>asente@adobe.com (A Usenet Pal) writes:

>>>In his column today in the NY Times (reprinted in the SF
>>>Chronicle and doubtless many other places) William Safire
>>>supports Clinton for president.

>>Hm.  Perhaps that should be put as: hell has frozen *right*
>>over.  Since Safire has never supported anything even
>>remotely left of center in his life, I guess that tell us
>>where old Bill (Clinton, that is) is, in case anyone still
>>wondered.

>This is an extraordinarily cheap shot.

If it is, I think it's a different one from what you think,
to judge by the example you give.

>Many people who have never supported anything even remotely
>left of center in their lives are opposed to Measure 9 in
>Oregon.  I guess that tells us where it really is, in case
>anyone still wondered.

>Now, find the flaw in that argument and convince me that
>this flaw doesn't apply to the preceding paragraph.

Your presumption is that political right/left applies to
human rights issues in an analogous way.  It doesn't.  It's
not "left" to be for human rights, even if (as usually
happens) it's the right that proposes to curtail them.
It's not "left" to be for liberty and justice for all.

>In his article Safire claimed grave misgivings about
>Clinton, but he can no longer support Bush because of the
>current administration's secrecy, politicization of the
>Justice Department, and blindness to issues of ethical
>conflict of interest.

It *is* (political) "right" to be an agent of a ruling elite
that places the accumulation of power and wealth for its own
class above that of the basic needs of all citizens.

Being against the Bush administration for the stated reasons
does not preclude being an agent of the right, which Safire
always has been, and (I believe) as Clinton always has been.
My point was that getting Safire's support reaffirms
Clinton's being right of center, otherwise (misgivings not
previously mentioned notwithstanding) Safire would be going
against his life-long tradition.  Now if he *did* that, it
would be remarkable, but I doubt that was it.

If that still seems a cheap shot to you, I can live with it.
Perhaps Bill Clinton, having achieved the Presidency, will
now move to the left in important ways.  I personally think
it would be a good thing to do.  But being an enthusiastic
supporter of civil rights would not of itself signal such a
move.  There are many cross-connections between civil-rights
issues and political economic issues, but they are not the
same thing, though it's in the interests of the right to
conflate them.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
<>  <>  <> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <>  <>  <>
Newsgroups: soc.motss