That ’90s Show
Don’t say goodbye to the Clinton era yet.

Mr. George is an editorial writer for the New York Post.
January 25, 2002 9:15 a.m.

he popular conceit is that "everything" changed with September 11, 2001. But is that really the case?

One theory shared by a social scientist or two says that while time marches on eras don't move with the explicit beginnings and endings that the calendar indicates. In fact, there is one body of thought that decades actually end approximately three years after their "official" temporal turn.

For example, the 1950's "began" with Eisenhower becoming president and ended with (either the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 or on November 22, 1963 as Camelot came to a shocking close with an assassin's bullet. The social uproar of the '60s were bookended by Kennedy's assassination and Nixon's reelection. The '70s were the "Me/Malaise Decade" [1973-1982] typified by three failed administrations (Nixon, Ford and Carter) and the sloth produced by Watergate and the "stagflation" economic hangover. The '80s "began" with the Reagan Recovery in 1983 and ended with the Bush Recession of 1992. Bill Clinton ushered in the 1990's in 1993 with his inauguration.

If we accept this view, it means that, as much as we might wish it to be not the case, the Clinton Era ain't over. We might want to believe that 9/11 was the "real" beginning of the 21st century and the true launch of the Bush presidency. But there's a lot of evidence laying around that suggests that the values and "lessons" of the Clinton '90s still call the cultural and political tune.

Item: '90s Maudlin Voyeurism. In New York, we have Ground Zero Deification. In recent days, the cops have been coming down hard on vendors who have been selling "bootleg" NYPD and FDNY hats and clothing paraphernalia. One particular company makes "official" memorabilia, and then licenses them. Well, as anyone who has visited New York City lately can tell you, street vendors all around have been selling hats, jackets, scarves, lapel pins, etc. with the logos — and most of them are knock-offs. This is portrayed as being, not just illegal, but an insensitive treatment of the city's heroes. The vendors are particular prevalent in the Ground Zero. Thus, the cops have been confiscating the bootleg stuff and ticketing the vendors.

That's all well and good, but while this is going on, the city is giving away "tickets" to see Ground Zero from a viewing stand. True, they are not selling tickets. Yet, considering that — technically — this is still a bodies-and-remains reclamation project, the scene smacks of the maudlin voyeurism that was the earmark of the Clinton weeping White House. (An international phenomenon, actually: How can we forget the weeks following the death of Princess Diana?)

Of course, former Mayor Giuliani helped create this culture, first by approving the building of a Ground Zero viewing stand and then suggesting that the entire area be transformed into a "soaring" memorial. On ABC's This Week, Cokie Roberts chimed in with her opinion that the entire sixteen acres upon which the World Trade Center stood must be considered "hallowed ground" upon which no economic activity should take place. Which means, to use a cliché, that the terrorists have really won.

Item: The '90s Victim Culture. Congress' well-intentioned Victim Compensation Fund — passed in the heat of the moment last fall with the intent to forestall mass lawsuits — has had what should have been considered predictable results. It has glued the victim culture to the entitlement culture. The fund's special master, Kenneth Feinberg — a Democrat lawyer, in fact — came up with a formula to assess the economic impact to the victims of the terrorist attacks. The average payout will be $1.6 million per individual (minus deductions for insurance and pensions).Feinberg used various criteria such as age of the victim at time of death, salary, number of children, etc. Feinberg also caps the "pain and suffering" aspect of the award at $250,000. Apparently, this is not enough. One widow of a firefighter cried, "Setting limits on our pain and suffering is a slap in the face to our loved one's memories."

This attitude has opened the door to bipartisan piling on Feinberg. Republican Gov. George Pataki, Democratic senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chuck Schumer, plus House members of both parties have all decried Feinberg's criteria and the stipulation that the families have to forego their right to sue airlines for damages. Amazingly, all of these people (save Pataki) voted for the fund, in the first place, even understanding its restrictions. Needless to say, one of the reasons for going ahead with the fund was the belief that it was more compassionate to give the victims money straight-away rather than let them go for years trying to win lawsuits.

Item: Multiculturalism Run Amok. The Firefighter Statue. Enough said.

Lest anyone think that the Clinton Era hangover is solely a New York phenomenon:

Item: Closed door White House meetings with private citizens discussing a sensitive issue central to the economy. In 1994, it was Hillary Clinton and health care. In 2001, it was Dick Cheney and energy policy. Yes, there are superficial differences, not the least of which is that Cheney was an accountable, duly elected public official running the meetings, while Hillary was none of the above. Fine, but stiff-arming and tempting a lawsuit from the General Accounting Office does a disservice to the administration that promised a restoration of "honor and dignity" to the White House. That means coming forward and giving the information on who the veep met with. As NR's Rich Lowry has observed, it's not as if a Bush/Republican energy plan would ideologically be that different from whatever suggestions that Enron or other business individuals might suggest. Republicans do tend to believe in things such as free markets and less regulation. Adopting a stonewall strategy, on the other hand, gives foes of the administration a perfect sword — especially now that Enron has exploded in all directions. And, no, Hillary's hypocrisy in calling for all information on Cheney's meetings doesn't exonerate the current administration's stonewalling.

Item: Creative Language Interpretation. In response to a reporter's question about his contacts with Ken Lay, President Bush responded that he first "got to know Ken Lay" when he was an "Ann Richards supporter" in the 1994 gubernatorial campaign. Well, apparently the days of parsing presidential statements are no longer in the past. Bill Clinton had the nerve to tell the nation that it depended on the definition of "is." Are we now supposed to figure out what Bush means when he uses the words "know" and "support"? Lay's relationship with the entire Bush family goes back decades. Yes, Lay gave money to Richards, but he also helped launch Bush's campaign as well — and ended up giving more money to Dubya.

The problem with these Bush statements is two-fold: First, the most infuriating too-cute wordplay is that which is most easily verifiable. Why even bother saying it? More importantly, by trying to minimize the relationship, it makes Bush seem, again, that he has something to hide. It also buys into the liberal/McCain myth that the campaign finance system is inherently corrupt. It suggests that if someone is a supporter of a politician, the relationship is by definition suspect.

Such dissembling gives the Democrats ammunition on both policy (campaign finance reform) and politics (scandal) grounds.

War? What war? It's like Bill never left.