"Clintonomics: How Bill Clinton Reengineered the Reagan Revolution" by Jack Godwin Ph.D.

Bob Dylan was right on target back in the early 1960s: The times, they are a-changin’.

Those of us who were politically savvy in the 1990s knew that President Bill Clinton was a shrewd politician, and a great leader as president. He’s still revered by most moderate Democrats, although his image has been tarnished by partisan attacks. But maybe not so much as you might think.

On May 1, 2009, Christopher Ruddy, the Editor in Chief of Newsmax.com, a website devoted to conservative Republican issues, completely blew my socks off by publishing an article with the title “Obama Needs Clintonomics – and Soon.”

He opened with this comment:

CIA Director Leon Panetta has some urgent advice for President Obama: Read “Clintonomics” and use it!

Panetta’s advice is no secret. He is referring to a new book just out, “Clintonomics: How Bill Clinton Reengineered the Reagan Revolution,” (AMACOM) by Dr. Jack Godwin, a political scientist.

Ruddy’s piece is basically a book review, adding his political editorializing. Herewith is my review of his review. Feel free to review my review of his review.

The “vast right wing conspiracy” that Hillary blamed for the political persecution of the Clintons was quite real, and some Republicans have admitted openly that is was so. The Republicans of the 1990s hated the Clintons, and most still do. That’s one of the reasons why I can never embrace the Republican Party, no matter how much the current Democratic Party sickens and frightens me, for reasons any reader of NQ knows all too well.

This is not to say that I hate Republicans, nor what they stand for. Many Republicans are good people with good intentions, just like normal people. I think the Republicans are absolutely necessary to forestall the creeping Socialism of the Democrats, just as the liberal Democrats are necessary to keep Republican authoritarianism in check.

But sometimes the streams merge, with exciting effect.

Check out Ruddy’s fascinating take on Bill Clinton’s economics [emphasis mine]:

Here’s what Panetta said about “Clintonomics”: “This book is a must read for those struggling to figure out the present economic crisis.”

As we all know, Obama is one of those struggling.

Before Panetta assumed his CIA post, he had served as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff. Panetta is a pragmatic man, not an ideologue.

So his praise for this new book should come as no surprise.

But what is surprising is that, as a Republican of the Reagan type, I couldn’t agree more with Panetta’s assessment.

OMG! I could hardly believe my eyes! Conservative Republican Newsmax.com promoting Bill Clinton’s economic policies! I had to put my head between my knees to keep from fainting! That’s when I noticed my socks were gone.

Christoper Ruddy continues:

Author Godwin’s basic point is that, contrary to widely held opinion, Clinton did not seek to turn back the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, dubbed “Reaganomics.” Instead, he embraced them and perfected them.

Godwin’s point of view is even more interesting because the foreword to the book is written by John Garamendi, who served in the Clinton administration as deputy secretary of the Department of Interior.

When Clinton came to office in 1993, the economy was in a downturn.

“Clinton attributed the country’s less than optimum economic performance to low productivity, low growth, stagnant wages, unemployment, budget deficits, and high healthcare costs, among other things,” Godwin observes.

“He outlined the essential components of his economic plan: shifting our emphasis from consumption to investment; making public policy friendlier to workers and families; reducing the federal deficit and cutting government waste; reforming the tax code; and, of course, creating jobs.”

Clinton, in short, sought to put a happy face on Reaganomics. [Godwin points out that Reagan himself disliked the characterization that it sounded like an “aerobic exercise or fad diet.”]

OK, now that made me laugh! Reagan did have a good sense of humor, I’ll give him that.

But now we see the author of this article is starting to give President Bill Clinton some of the respect he deserved as the steward of our economy.

He goes on to say:

Reagan strongly believed that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Though Clinton did not agree with that view, he did believe that government needed to be both improved and downsized.

Both Clinton and Reagan grasped the notion that the private sector, not the public one, is the primary productive engine of the economy.

Thus Clinton offered a “New Covenant,” which Godwin writes “was indeed based on an old idea — the idea that with opportunity comes responsibility. Clinton wanted to create a leaner, not meaner government . . . In practice, this meant downsizing the federal government, cutting unnecessary and wasteful spending, and bringing down the deficit.”

I can hear the Gipper applauding Clinton’s sentiment.

And I can hear a million Republicans gasping! “Sacrilege!!” they scream as they fall to the floor, rending their garments and gnashing their teeth in anguish!

This is one courageous Republican writing here! He must have Titanium balls! And I’m not talking walnuts here, I’m talking zeppelins!

As the Republican ideologues writhe in partisan apoplexy, Ruddy twists the knife deeper:

Clinton is even quoted as saying that he was “the man who downsized the government more than President Reagan did.” This is true.

Democrats have long complained that Reagan gave us huge budget deficits and grew the national debt dramatically.

This also is true.

Some on the left even saw a conspiratorial overtone to the Reagan deficits. Reagan ran up huge deficits to prevent the Democrats from funding new entitlement programs, so the theory went.

Although Reagan did run up the national debt wildly, it had nothing to do with entitlements. Reagan repeatedly stated, before and after his election in 1980, that he would opt for large deficits if he needed them to bankroll his military buildup to counter the Soviet Union.

Indeed, Reagan’s plan worked. The massive military buildup not only helped defeat the Soviet empire but also left the U.S. a sizable “peace dividend” in the 90s.

Ronald Reagan set the stage for Bill Clinton. Clinton’s brilliance was in realizing the gift he had received from the Reagan years. He easily could have moved to shift the “peace dividend” from declining defense expenditures to social programs. But he didn’t.

Instead, he reduced the growth of government, ultimately leaving his successor, George W. Bush, a budget surplus.

“A budget surplus.” Wow! What was that like? Surplus! To quote Bob Dylan again, from the song My Back Pages, “I spoke the word as if a wedding vow. Ah, but I was so much older then. I’m younger than that now.”

These words have mystified many listeners over the years, but put simply, Dylan was trying to convey that he had grown up, abandoning the arrogance of know-it-all youth. With maturity, he gained the humility of knowing that he didn’t know it all as a student and was now embarrassed by his youthful idealism. I can definitely relate to that, as a formal liberal who is now a staunch Centrist.

To paraphrase: I was so much more arrogant then, I’m humbler than that now.

How little we, as a nation, appreciated the incredible economic gift bestowed upon us by Clintonomics. The national deficit run up under Reagan, then more so by G.H.W. Bush, was the highest the country had ever seen at that point. Bill Clinton came into office, and eight years later, the deficit was turned into a surplus. Eight years after Bush II, the deficit was the worst in history. But that’s nothing compared to what Obama has managed in a little over 100 days.

I’m reminded of Groucho Marx as President Rufus T. Firefly in Duck Soup, as he sang about the plans for his administration.

“The last man nearly ruined this place
He didn’t know what to do with it
If you think this country’s bad off now
Just wait till I get through with it.

The country’s taxes must be fixed
And I know what to do with it.
If you think you’re paying too much now,
Just wait till I get through with it.”

As much as I love digressing, I’ll now force myself back on topic, and back to this wonderful piece of editorializing, allowing Newsmax Editor Christopher Ruddy to finish his thought-provoking article in its entirety:

When Clinton came into office, he tinkered with nationalizing healthcare with the so-called “Hillarycare” program. But Congress thwarted his plans.

It was the best thing that ever happened to Clinton.

Well, one little interjection here. I know some of you will be seething at this remark, but please, allow yourself to admit that the time, 1993, wasn’t right yet for such a sweeping change, as much as we all support Hillary’s healthcare reform ideas. Now, with the wisdom of maturity, many of us realize that a national health program may never be right for America, but that we still support reforms that will ensure proper medical treatment for all, without driving families to bankruptcy.

I speak for myself only. And those that agree with me. You know, the majority!

And now I’ll let the man finish:

After the healthcare debacle, he moved to the center. He adopted a bipartisan approach and even worked with Newt Gingrich in some areas, including welfare reform and cutting the capital gains tax.

“Bill Clinton launched his campaign to end welfare as we know it because he . . . believed millions of people were trapped in the system,” Godwin notes.

“When Clinton signed welfare reform legislation in 1996, he passed the greatest test of federalism, according to the standard set by Ronald Reagan himself.”

Clinton argued that entitlement programs do not work if the government does not require something in return from the recipient. He often referred to “the politics of entitlement” as a way of criticizing his own party.

“Some, but not all, in the national Democratic Party have placed too much faith in the whole politics of entitlement, the idea that big bureaucracies and government spending, demanding nothing in return, can produce the results we want,” he said in a speech.

“We know that is simply not true. There is a limit to how much government can do in the absence of an appropriate response by the American people at the grass-roots level.”

Clinton’s approach is starkly different from President Obama’s. With strong majorities in the House and the Senate, Obama has brushed aside a bipartisan approach. And unlike Clinton, he clearly favors the public sector over the private sector in restoring economic growth.

As Godwin says, Clinton’s governing philosophy was the logical corollary to the Reagan Revolution, stressing fiscal discipline and the end of big government.

“In public, Clinton positioned his governing philosophy as the antidote to Reaganomics,” Godwin writes. “In fact, Clinton and Reagan are fellow travelers separated more by party affiliation than political ideology.”

Barack Obama does have something to learn from Bill Clinton and “Clintonomics.”

Many Republicans have been reevaluating the Clinton years and realizing, as I have, that the country prospered under a more centrist approach. Obama should take the advice of his CIA director.

I’m staring at this revelation, slack-jawed in awe! Read that last paragraph again while I catch my breath!

Is it possible that even conservative Republicans now appreciate Bill Clinton’s policies? Have they now, like Dylan 44 years ago, realized that the times they are a-changin’? Have they come to realize that they were so much more arrogant then, but they’re humbler than that now?

I, for one, applaud this fresh outlook with enthusiastic optimism. Let’s hope it’s contagious! That would be one pandemic I could look forward to spreading!