Blumen' Idiot
In Sidney Blumenthal's memoir of President Clinton's second term, you'll find…
retarded overstatements:
Many on the staff had extraordinary political histories; almost all of them had come from working- or middle-class backgrounds, having accomplished much professionally, and having wended their way up on Capitol Hill, in campaigns and public interest groups. They were like the classic cast in a war movie about a platoon on the Western Front. I worked every day with people from West Virginia, Iowa, Idaho, Brooklyn, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and California.
hateful cheap shots:
Blacks held positions of responsibility throughout the staff. They were anything but token figures, as they had been in Republican administrations.
absurd multicultural braggadocio in the My Big Fat Greek Whitehouse vein:
At many meetings there would be none [no White Anglo-Saxon Protestants]—only conglomerations of Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Jews, Hispanics, and blacks. At one such meeting, Clinton joked that he was the only WASP present.
Commander McBragg reminiscences by a roaring fire:
If a speech was settled, the mood would become relaxed before it was time for him to deliver it, and he might launch into a rambling political tale from Arkansas—like the time he faced down a lobbyist from the National Rifle Association and challenged him to a shootout.
And so much more. We haven't even gotten to the VRW Conspiracy and Clinton's efforts to "help" Monica, wherein the President comes off as a passive sexual functionary in the manner of Byron's Don Juan. ("I feel like a character in a novel, Clinton said.") Sadly, dipsomaniacal gadfly Christopher Hitchens does not make an appearance in the excerpted passages. Highly recommended nonetheless.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Only a German, or perhaps a Russian, would have referred to “a platoon on the Western Front.” Just a strange choice of words.
ROFLMFAO BILL!!! He must have been thinking of the Western Front of Washington DC that faces the rest of the country.
Cheap shots? Are you kidding? There might be other shots that are truly cheap in that book, but if you think both White Houses are similar in terms of integration, you’ve been watching too much Fox News.
Please let anyone give us some liberal-slanted journalism, even if it’s Sid vicious.
PorelOrti, I don’t give a rat’s patootie what color a guy or gal is (unless they’re blue; I’d do a little CPR then…), do you?
Clinton wanted to build a cabinet that “looked like America”. Yet, Blumenthal giggles in giddy glee when Bubba’s the only WASP in the room. La-di-f@%#n’-da. Talk about yer “tokens”.
Can’t…resist…temptation…to…dignify…dumb…comment…with response…
Right, PO. Powell and Rice are just figureheads, and the illusion is maintained by Fox’s complicity. It’s not like they have important jobs like Sec of Commerce or Surgeon General.
Since when is Black a religion?
Since the Church of Multiculturalism equated the two. Yea, verily it was so, and the sloths, and fruitbats, and Republicans were as dust.
Omnibus-
Maybe you weren’t paying attention to my post.
When asked about AFIRMATIVE ACTION, Bush stated he didn’t need the NAACP or any other group of racial minorities, because he had Powell and Rice. Their later disassociation with his stance means he DIDN’T EVEN ASK THEM. This means that racial minorities had NO input on his amicus brief on AA. (You appear to think that this is a “wisecrack”- I happen to believe jokes should be funny.)
And pointing to his intergrated cabinets and agencies is all nice and well, but it ignores the fact that he filed a motion against the programs that allowed some (perhaps most) of those people to rise. Even the illustrious Dr.’s Rice and Gen. Powell (who CERTAINLY weren’t quota’ed in) don’t buy the BS about meritocracy he tried to peddle.
Advisors that aren’t listened to? Tokens.
I’d hardly say Rice and Powell “aren’t listened to.” The do seem to have some tiny degree of influence on peripheral issues such as national defense, international relations, domestic security, and other afterthoughts. Though they are clearly not listened to on issues of race relations, they can hardly be said to be tokens.
My point is not that Bush is progressive on race relations; he seems to be as clueless and callous on equality of opportunity issues as any other conservative Republican, including ones with a racial slant. My point is that, unlike every other Republican president in American History, he does not seem to have difficulty establishing professional relationships with African American individuals, and respecting them enough to choose them to occupy high positions in government.
Joe-
As nice as those sentiments are- let me repeat for clarity-
THERE WAS NO MINORITY INPUT WE CAN DISCERN ON BUSH’S AMICUS BRIEF ADVOCATING DOING AWAY WITH AA.
Frankly, his professional relationships with African Americans means NOTHING in the face of that fact. If they were appointed for their expertise in int’l affairs and defense, why drag them into the AA debate at all? In fact, the combination of regressive policies, and his attempt to USE THEM AS SHIELDS to deflect criticism of those policies, implies that he might’ve appointed them with the awareness of their use as shields in the first place.
People appointed to deflect criticism? Tokens.
Being the most inclusive of Republican Presidents is low hanging fruit indeed.
Buzzing gadfly here – “Frankly, his professional relationships with African Americans means NOTHING in the face of that fact.” Or it might mean that Bush is thinking exactly like the many African-Americans who oppose AA.
Let me get this straight here, Sir Real…any pro-affirmative action minorities in an administration with whom the President doesn’t agree, are tokens? do have that right?
Sir Real,
Calling someone a “token” impugns the legitimacy of their selection and the significance of the responsibilities they’re given. I believe that Powell, Rice, and (shudder) Paige were chosen because Bush had confidence in their ability, and I believe they have been entrusted with high levels of responsibility (Paige-shudder). They are important members of the team, now window dressing.
The fact that Bush chose to exploit their race does not make them tokens. It is to his discredit, but does not impugn their service.
Croesus: diversity in and of itself = good. Diversity as manifested via government-mandated quotas = bad. What’s so bizarre about that?
A neo-conservative speaks! 🙂
http://www.iht.com/articles/95261.html
Omnibus Bill, Blumenthal’s probably confusing the WWI depicted in “All Quiet on the Western Front” with the WWII depicted in movies. 🙂
Brian,
Blumenthal was writing about the Republican administrations that preceded Clinton. And it is quite true that minorities were barely seen and amost never heard under Nixon, Regan and GHW Bush. Props to George W.-he does seem to have abandoned that particular Republican tradition.
Re: Tokenism
I seem to recall Pres. Bush II being asked about the input of NAACP or other national organization on Affirmative Action- his response? (sic) “That’s what we’ve got Condi and Powell for”.
Sounds like tokens to me.
Of course, they made a public break with Dubya regarding his stance on affirmative action- I suppose he must not have been listening that closely…
MadDog: So then, which kind of German soldier is Sid — the WWII kind, or the WWI kind?
As for supposed tokens Sir Real – I guess you haven’t looked at the people who comprise the management staff — politicals and high level civil servants — of the Departments of Education, Transportation, Justice, HHS, or DOD. There’s a big difference between a Bush wisecrack, and his performance. As if the last president didn’t teach us that it’s better to judge what a man does, rather than what he says.
omnibus bill,
There is nothing more bizarre than Repuglicans, who chomp at the bit to condemn AA, and then go out of their way to show many black folks they’ve hired, appointed, etc., and how “inclusive they are.”
Spork: As far as “looking like America” goes, weren’t something like 9/10ths of Clinton’s cabinet millionaires? Here we go: “at least six confirmed millionaires”. Yeah, that looks like America…at least if one thinks being an American is only skin deep.
Croesus: Well, I don’t suppose I have to tell you that various interests, not least of them the Dems, are hair-trigger ready to jump all over Repubs at the least little thing that suggests anything other than “a commitment to diversity and inclusiveness” and blah blah blah – “racism” being the modern accusation of “witchcraft”. Appointing a few non-pasty-white types is a cheap way to head off the accusation. Of course, it hardly helps that the Repubs tend to make it so easy for their opponents.
What a great guy! He was actually in a room with people from Idaho. What a wonderful, wonderful leader.
Is being Black the same as being Catholic? Since when is Black a religion?
Brad S.,
Well, because, they brag about it as if they are committed to AA, while condemning AA at the same time.
Croesus – but the point is that it’s possible to be committed to diversity but to oppose AA at the same time. In a merit-based society, diversity will happen naturally. Schools, businesses, and governments can all achieve diversity without government-mandated quotas requiring everything to consist of at least 25% African-Americans, 15% Hispanic-Americans, 10% Asian-Americans, 50% females, etc. True, AA may achieve the end goal of “diversity”, but it achieves it in a manner that (IMHO) is far from ideal.
Brad S.,
There is no such thing as a wholly merit-based society (remember the old saw, its not what you know, its who you know), and likely never will be. And I am not advocating AA. I am merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the Bush administration. They ridicule AA, while at the same time they trumpet the race of their hires as a sign of “inclusiveness.” Race shouldn’t matter (the fact that its merely a social construct seems to strengthen this statement), and it certainly should be used as a PR tool.
shouldn’t be
j.c.-
I wish you would name some of those african-americans- maybe Bush consulted them. However, Dr.’s Rice and Gen. Powell (the two most powerful african americans currently) disagree. I happen to respect their opinion much more than Bush’s, yours, or these nebulous “many african americans”.
Brad-
You have it all wrong. Rice and Powell could’ve disagreed with the president all day long. It was Bush’s cynical use of their race to support a policy that THEY DIDN’T AGREE WITH that makes them “tokens”, IMHO. Again- he didn’t consult ANY minorities we know of.
Joe-
You’re right- I regret impugning their responsibilities and capabilities. Token just seemed to sum up the disgusting way GW used them in the AA debate. I suppose I should look for another term, to place the disrespect where it belongs.
Sir Real,
How about “tokenize?” Bush attempted to “tokenize” two of the most respected foreign policy minds in his party, in order to sell a rollback of Affirmative Action.
I like it.
I think Bush should not be president and I do not trust Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don’t know about Kerry, but I think i will vote against bush. These people give me a really bad feeling
I think Bush should not be president and I do not trust Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don’t know about Kerry, but I think i will vote against bush. These people give me a really bad feeling