比爾.柯林頓政績如何?

12-06

一直很欣賞美國前總統比爾柯林頓，他任內，美國經歷可能是最繁榮時期，促進以巴握手（當然不包括萊溫斯基事件），請問美國人如何看待他，比大小布希有更多正面評價嗎

在比爾·柯林頓的任期中美國的經濟被稱之為很「繁榮」，證據包括：股市增長，房價增長，失業率降低，就業率提高，生活水平提高。冷戰結束之後，1990年代是個比較和平的時期，柯林頓幸運地不用面對很多災難（至少，沒有小布希和奧巴馬面對的多）。

我是美國自由派，民主黨支持者。那麼你可能以為我一定喜歡比爾柯林頓。其實，並不是如此。

首先說到比爾柯林頓的性格。在美國，評價總統看他性格和看他政績一樣重要。柯林頓表面顯得開朗，低調，了解老百姓的問題。但我覺得他性格其實很膚淺，感覺他一直在演一個角色,說的話是大眾想要聽的。

我對柯林頓主要的批評是針對他的政績，其實它並沒有那麼光輝。1990年代美國經濟繁榮不是柯林頓一個人造成的。經濟的起伏是循環性的，有時候火熱，興隆，有時候蕭條，衰敗。在柯林頓任期中的時候經濟屬於比較好更多說明他的運氣好。

可是1990年代美國的經濟真的那麼繁榮嗎？如果我們再看仔細一點，我們會發現並不是。總體財富增加了很多，90年代大部分所產生的財富是鞏固再富人（也就是說Top 1%)的手裡，而中產階級「老百姓」的財富幾乎沒增加。柯林頓所造成的「新就業機會」大部分是低收入的，真沒什麼值得驕傲的。在柯林頓任期八年中，美國貧富差距也增加了不少：1992年最富1％的財富佔全國13.5％，2000年佔16.5％。雖然有些人生活水平提高了，但是很多是盲目地憑藉債行為，這樣很不可持續，是2008年經濟危機的原因之一。

柯林頓通過了很多對大企業和華爾街有利卻對老百姓有害的政策。柯林頓1999年批准了 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act，廢止了1933年分割投資銀行和普通銀行的Glass-Steagall Act，並阻止了一個可能監管衍生品市場的法案。他的財政部長羅伯特·魯賓（Robert Rubin）是原高盛集團(Goldman Saches)的CEO，代表華爾街的利益，使得不少人懷疑金融業在政府幕後操縱。

對於同性戀人權運動的支持者來說，比爾?柯林頓的「不許問，不許說」政策是很不好的，給了同性戀士兵很大的壓力，壓抑著自己的身份。

最後，不能不提的是莫尼卡?萊溫斯基(Monica Lewinsky)醜聞。其實，史上許多美國總統都在玩了婚外情（最著名的是肯尼迪和瑪麗蓮)。但在1990這樣保守派復興而且互聯網時代柯林頓的行為非常愚痴。他人的私生活我一般不管，但這次醜聞浪費了美國的多麼時間多麼資源真是值得批評的。

英文版：
During the 1990s, the American economy "boomed". Stock market value and home prices soared. Unemployment was low. Jobs were created. Standards of living rose. With the Cold War at an end, the world enjoyed a period of relative peace, and there were few major tragedies or wars to scar the Clinton presidency.

You may assume that as a liberal and typical supporter of the Democratic Party I would be very fond of Clinton. But I"m not.

First I will comment on his personality. In the US, a president is judged as much on his personality as on his accomplishments. Clinton may have come across as a friendly guy, down-to-earth guy. Certainly that"s the image he projected. But I didn"t buy it for a minute. To me, Clinton was the epitome of the manipulative politician, making the public think he really cared. Like when he famously told a black single mother "I feel your pain".

But my main criticisms of Clinton lie more with the substance of his legacy. The economic successes of the 1990s can"t really be attributed to him personally. The economy goes up and down in cycles, and Clinton just happened to be lucky to preside over one of the upswings.

But look closer at the numbers and we see that the Clinton economy was not all it seemed. Overall wealth increased during the 1990s, but it increased much more for the upper class than it did for the middle class and the poor. Many of the jobs "created" under Clinton were poor-paying "McJobs" (e.g. minimum wage worker at McDonalds).

The gap between the rich and poor increased dramatically. From the beginning to the end of Clinton"s presidency the top 1% increased their share of national income from 13.5% to 16.5%.

Clinton approved many bills which gave huge breaks to corporations and Wall Street. He approved the bill which undid the age-old law requiring investment banks and retail banks to remain separate, and blocked a bill which would have regulated the market in derivatives. Many economists blame these moves as contributing to the financial crisis that unfolded under Bush. Much of Clinton"s economic policy was devised by Robert Rubin, who was former chairman of Goldman Sachs, leading many to argue that Wall Street was pulling the strings of Clinton"s economic policy.

On social issues, Clinton disappointed advocates for gay rights. His "don"t ask don"t tell" policy forced gays in the military to keep their identity a secret.

Finally, of course the scandal with Monica Lewinsky left a huge stain on Clinton and the Democratic Party. I personally don"t care what Clinton or anyone else does in private life. It"s quite normal for the president of the United States to have affairs with women outside marriage. Kennedy was famous for it! I"m more disappointed that he was stupid enough to get caught. The last two years of his presidency were completely dominated by the scandal, and while ultimately that"s the fault of the Republican party who manipulated the scandal for political effect, it"s Clinton who gave them the opportunity to do so.

我補充一個當時的說法，柯林頓是一個可以把冰箱賣到北極的人。

廢除格拉斯-斯蒂格爾法案這一行為被普遍認為是最終導致2008年金融危機的重要元兇之一。我覺得這就足夠柯林頓坐實過大於功這一條了。

重返工作 12年柯林頓寫的書。讀完第一章就能知道他的治國理政思路。
之後，如果熟悉九十年代到現在美國的歷史的話。就明白他有多nb了

總體上說，柯林頓的八年是頗有意味的：

蘇東劇變讓美國卸下了一個巨大的包袱，而中東戰爭則讓美國再次顯示了唯一超級大國的實力和自信。在這個背景下看柯林頓的八年，經濟增長，就業率提升，失業率下降，股市興旺等等，如果不是無能的話，都是一個必然的事情。所謂經濟增長周期趕上了這樣的說法，不如說it時代來臨更有說服力。

我想要說的是，柯林頓的八年是傳統自由主義思想佔據主流的八年，之前是新自由主義或者說是哈耶克等人的激進自由主義的時代，之後的小布希是neo自由主義的時代。沒記錯的話大體上是這樣。

上面翻譯的英文其實很能說明問題。鞏固富人的批評是耐人尋味的：其實如果按照自由主義的思路出發，最後指向的必然是財富的集中，市場指向的必然而已，所以左派更強調分配和再分配。如果推行市場經濟，那麼福利社會的成分就會下降到第二位，就會產生一個很有趣的問題：就業率上去了，因為沒有那麼多政府福利你就得自己養活自己，你就得工作而不是等救濟；可是呢，低收入工作者的數量就上來了，所以剝削啊壓迫啊什麼的就加劇了。這其實是一個常識性的問題。在美國這樣的社會，如果沒有浪潮性的產業創新，創造更多的就業機會何其難哉？

想必奧巴馬這八年，其實柯林頓乾的很不錯了，除了沒管住自己的褲襠，其他的方面能夠拿得出鐵證詬病的地方，還真不多。

我期待小希子逆襲........我是不是瘋了.......

嗯吶雖然兩人都是逆全球化可是希子更輕不是嗎

而且希子多養眼，多有素質，多不張揚，還是個女孩子

特朗普

.............

我什麼都不想說