Sometimes even democracy needs a little wake-up call. Beyond the varied issues that got them out on the streets — and the violent methods favored by a minority among them — the demonstrators who battled police for control of downtown Seattle over the past few days issued a profound challenge to politics as usual in the Clinton era.
That much was clear by the reaction of the President, who found himself trying to identify with people protesting against an institution that is the logical outcome of his own business-friendly, pro-trade policies. But there's a lot more to this spectacle than the irony of the demonstrators of yesteryear now finding themselves playing the guys in the Brooks Brothers suits on the wrong side of the picket line.
The fact that the labor and mainstream environmental groups that Clinton in 1982 would have counted among his natural allies are now moved to mount the biggest protests America has seen since the Vietnam War speaks volumes about the politics of the Clinton era. The centerpiece of the President's "Third Way" or "New Democrat" ideology was to challenge the Republicans' traditional monopoly on being the party of business. The Clinton administration may have have blown hot and then cold on its liberal advocates over the past seven years, but its bottom line has consistently been the bottom line of America, Inc.
"Bill Clinton has always been an unapologetic advocate of expanded trade," says TIME White House correspondent Jay Branegan. "As a moderate governor of a farm state, he's always maintained business-friendly policies and emphasized that prosperity depends on opening up foreign markets for your products. He's helped turn the Democrats into a pro-business party of fiscal responsibility."
While Clinton promised American voters that he'd end "politics as usual," he quietly went off to Wall Street and assured the corporate pooh-bahs that he'd protect and expand business-as-usual. He promised to safeguard and open up markets for corporate America, run a fiscally tight ship and prepare the nation's workforce and corporations to win the globalization game.
And he delivered.
The Clinton era has seen both unparalleled prosperity and unparalleled government intervention to directly protect and advance the interests of specific U.S. corporations operating in world markets. Whether it was bailing out Mexico's currency to protect U.S. institutional investors or organizing a preemptive line of credit to prevent Brazil's economy tanking under pressure from Asia, or pressing China to make a host of concessions to specific U.S. corporations in exchange for WTO membership or leaning on South Africa over importing AIDS drugs from foreign sources that sold them cheaper than U.S. pharmaceutical corporations, the Clinton administration has always been on point for American business. Candidate Clinton may have pilloried President Bush for being too soft on China, but President Clinton has for the most part followed suit, viewing China more as a market rather than as foreign policy competitor.
"The Clintonites have always been open about doing what business wants," says Branegan. "The President genuinely believes that growth is good and capitalism is good, and that business and government can work together to find win-win solutions to problems such as the environment."
Of course he's had no trouble convincing corporate America to sign on to that idea, but he's struggled elsewhere. His tussle with labor organizations over the NAFTA agreement resulted in many Democrats on Capitol Hill colluding with Republicans in stripping Clinton of his right to negotiate "fast-track" trade agreements. He's increasingly faced opposition on both sides of the aisle to free trade policies, which have left him vulnerable to populist attack. "Pat Buchanan complains that both parties are now too pro-business, and that resonates with some people," says Branegan. Because as Seattle showed, there are many thousands of Americans who are far from convinced that what's good for business is good for them.
Despite Clinton's sunny win-win beliefs, environmental interests often clash directly with those of business. And while American labor rails against sweatshop conditions in developing countries and gets the President's sympathy, many of those sweatshops are actually manufacturing goods for American corporations.
Of course, none of these issues are simple. Labor standards, for example, may appear to be an obviously good idea, but Third World countries are in rebellion against any attempt to enforce them — for the simple reason that cheap labor is all many of them have to offer in the world economy, and enforcing minimum standards may actually destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs in the developing world. Why would a U.S. apparel manufacturer have its wares manufactured in China if it had to pay American-level wages? So just as what's good for business isn't always good for all of society, what's good for the American worker isn't always good for the Indonesian worker.
The corporate prosperity of the Clinton era has been accompanied by an unparalleled growth in American cynicism — and outright hostility — toward Washington's political class. But the Seattle demonstrations — and the political shock wave they sent around America — showed that passive cynicism may be giving way to active outrage.
For the most part, Americans take to the streets only to express their political views when they believe the electoral system isn't responding to their concerns. And it's hardly surprising that those on the streets in Seattle may doubt the effectiveness of taking up their grievances at the polls in an electoral system totally beholden to the millions of dollars of corporate "soft money" that greases the wheels of both parties. Long after the ink has dried on the last signature of the last trade deal in Seattle, the aftershocks of the battle for its streets may reverberate in American politics.