Martin Scorsese will add another dimension to the political rehabilitation of former president Bill Clinton with a new documentary. Personally, I think it’ll be more like a slick piece of propaganda, but I admit I’m jaded anytime Hollywood goes near a president from either political party.
Scorsese told media:
“Through intimate conversations, I hope to provide greater insight into this transcendent figure.”
Transcendent is pretty appropriate, but the context is in the mind of the beholder.
Did Clinton go beyond limits on beliefs and policies? He certainly did with his housing policy, expanding a bubble in home ownership that burst on his successor’s watch. Clinton’s National Partners in Homeownership initiative pulled banks, contractors, real estate interests and the financial sector into a bubble that finally didn’t so much pop as collapse inwards.
When Clinton announced that proclamation in 1994 at an annual meeting for real estate professionals*, he brought up the American Dream and said he wanted 70 percent of us to own our own homes.
Vast sums of money were made by those who were in on the deal and even many who weren’t. At no point in time was the concept of feasibility considered. As a matter of fact, anyone who attempted to caution us about the government sponsored enterprises soaking up taxpayer dollars and doling them out to anyone who could sign his or her name to paper pretty much got politically shredded. Democrats in Congress like Rep. Barney Frank (N.Y.), Maxine Waters (Calif.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) guarded those GSEs like a hound dog guards his bone.
You and I bailed out the whole sector, and as reward, most homeowners’ equity evaporated.
Scorsese will likely not include praise due former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) who was at the forefront of Republicans regaining the House of Representatives in 1994 for the first time in 40 years. That tenure, by the way, is something Dems rarely talk about. They held the purse strings for almost half a century, and if you don’t think that impacted what the federal government spends now, you’d be wrong.
Clinton is often credited for welfare reform. In truth, Gingrich and the Republicans led him kicking and screaming towards that goal. As a matter of fact, had Gingrich not been part of the Clinton years, it’s likely the Democrat would have a far thinner legacy.
Much is on record about the Clintons, both of them. Hopefully alternative media will finally tell Americans some truths about this former president who has enjoyed a remarkable political rehabilitation.
I suspect the film will be cleverly plotted and presented. I also suspect the filmmaker who is more or less a cheerleader for Democrats’ policies is aiding the Clintons ahead of rumors that Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, allegedly sidetracked by a sudden “concussion” prohibiting her from helping to clear up the Benghazi scandal, may be running for president in 2016.
Inflated globalism, the socialization of healthcare, divisive politics, the first bailout to save the world and an appeasement-based foreign policy—those are part and parcel of Clinton’s legacy.
Two excellent works that include much detail about the Clintons are Reckless Endangerment* (Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner) and The Final Days (Barbara Olson).
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Dec. 18, 2012)