September 11, 2001

Previous Chapter

This is “America in Our Time, 1992–Present”, chapter 14 from the book United States History, Volume 2 (v. 1.0). For details on it (including licensing), click here.

For more information on the source of this book, or why it is available for free, please see the project's home page. You can browse or download additional books there. To download a .zip file containing this book to use offline, simply click here.

Has this book helped you? Consider passing it on:

Help Creative Commons Creative Commons supports free culture from

music to education. Their licenses helped make this book available to you.

Help a Public School DonorsChoose.org helps people like you help teachers fund their classroom projects, from

art supplies to books to calculators.

Table of Contents

Chapter 14 America in Our Time, 1992–Present

The end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union left the United States as the only

military superpower. Some hoped that the nation would respond with massive reductions in military

spending, perhaps even an “America first” policy that was similar to the isolationism of earlier periods

in US history. Taxpayers had spent $4 trillion building nuclear weapons and trillions more

maintaining its military and fighting proxy wars around the globe. Two generations had lost their lives

fighting in wars many believed were a mistake and for causes that seemed no longer relevant. Others

hoped that America would use its unrivaled military and economic power to promote democracy and

human rights around the globe. Still others saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity for

profitable business expansion via globalization.

In many ways, each of these ideas affected US diplomacy in the post–Cold War years. However, even

after the fall of Communism, US foreign policy was as much a response to the actions of others

throughout the globe as it was an attempt by Americans to shape the world around them. A series of

economic crises reminded Americans that their economy and their nation were part of a global system.

The cowardice of nineteen terrorists on September 11, 2001, likewise reminded the nation of its

vulnerabilities, while the response to this attack demonstrated the character of its people. The attack

also awakened the world to the ways that the Cold War had obscured ethnic, religious, and regional

conflicts in places such as Central Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The relationship between the

two biggest challenges of the post–Cold War era—global security and economic stability—would shape

the US response to the terrorist attacks and define the politics of the next two decades.

14.1 America during the Clinton Administration

L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S

1. Identify Clinton’s top priorities as an incoming president. Explain which of these programs

were successful. Discuss the reasons that others were not passed by Congress.

Summarize the arguments and methods of those who supported and opposed the Clinton

health care plan.

2. Summarize the “Contract with America” and its impact on US history. Explain the main

objectives of Republican leaders such as Newt Gingrich and the arguments for and against

their leading proposals.

3. Explain the issues of the 1996 presidential election and why Clinton was able to defeat his

Republican opponent just two years after the Republicans swept Congress. Explain how

Newt Gingrich and the Republicans lost the initiative and how Clinton was able to retain

high public approval ratings during his second term even in the wake of scandal.

Domestic Politics in Clinton’s First Two Years

Clinton appointed more women and minorities to meaningful positions in the federal government

than any president in the past. Madeleine Albright was Clinton’s secretary of state while Janet Reno

served as attorney general. Together, these women led the Clinton administration’s efforts to confront

domestic and international terrorism. At home, Clinton supported a number of antipoverty programs

and proposed a federal plan to extend health care coverage to all citizens. Clinton also sought to

maintain his reputation as a moderate. As a result, the president angered many of the more liberal

members of his party who had hoped he would reverse the conservative policies of previous

administrations and expand the welfare state. Clinton believed the increasing polarization between the

political left and right was an opportunity for presidential leadership. If he could steer a course

between liberals and conservatives, Clinton believed, he might win support for his health care reform

bill while still being perceived as a moderate that united the country.

The president created a few modest programs that won liberal support. One of these programs was

AmeriCorps—a federal work program that employs mostly younger people and seniors in a variety of

community service fields. After Clinton’s health plan floundered, however, it appeared to many liberals

that Clinton had decided that the easiest way to be viewed as a moderate was to adopt popular

Republican initiatives as his own.

Welfare reform provides one of many examples of Clinton’s efforts to steer a middle course between

both liberals and conservatives. As a candidate, Clinton had tapped into the suspicion raised by

conservative politicians regarding “welfare mothers.” Placing stricter limits on direct payments to

welfare recipients, the Clinton administration promised to transform welfare into a program that

assisted only those who were striving for independence. Toward this goal, Clinton supported stricter

regulations on direct payments. He also approved a significant increase of the Earned Income

Credit, which offered an annual payment to those who worked at low-paying jobs rather than

application for welfare. The amount of the credit was based on income and the number of dependents

for which a low-income worker was responsible.

Clinton defended the plan as a means to reward those who worked. He pointed out that most

individuals on welfare would make only slightly less than a full-time worker at a minimum-wage job

unless some adjustment was made. While Clinton also supported a modest increase to the minimum

wage, he believed that tax credits for the working poor were necessary to provide incentives for people

to get off of welfare. Critics of the plan were angered that those who qualified for the Earned Income

Credit paid no federal tax yet would still receive a tax refund under the new plan. This new policy

seemed even more unfair to some individuals in the wake of increased tax rates for some families. At

the same time, Clinton’s support for curtailing direct welfare payments also angered some on the left.

Figure 14.1

President Clinton appointed more women to his cabinet and senior staff than any previous president. To the

immediate left of President Clinton is Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In the bottom right corner is

Janet Reno, the first woman to hold the position of attorney general.

Clinton’s most ambitious domestic initiative was also the most controversial of his entire eight years in

office. As a candidate, Clinton seldom missed an opportunity to talk about the rising costs of health

care he believed were crippling the economy and bankrupting families. Clinton’s supporters pointed

out that there were nearly 40 million Americans without health insurance—most of whom were

children or full-time workers. If elected president, Clinton promised sweeping legislation that would

offer universal health care for all Americans under a federally operated managed-care plan that was

similar to the offerings of many private insurance companies. Clinton’s supporters argued that because

the government would instantly become the largest insurer in the nation, the government would be

able to regulate the prices that doctors and hospitals charged. Although a doctor could still charge any

amount she wished, the federal government would only pay a certain amount for any particular

service. This was similar to the practice of private insurance companies that also established

maximum prices they would pay for different procedures and prescriptions. The difference, Clinton

believed, was that the federal government would insure so many people that most doctors would have

to lower their costs to meet the government rate or else lose the business of numerous patients.

Opponents of the plan countered that increased government bureaucracy would either increase the

costs of health care or cost taxpayers money.

Clinton’s supporters provided numerous statistics in an effort to show that government intervention

would save money and improve care. The campaign against Clinton’s plan was bankrolled by

organizations representing insurers, drug companies, hospitals, and physicians. As a result, most

Americans questioned much of the information they were hearing as either politically biased or

motivated by the medical industry’s own financial interests. However, the plan’s opponents were able

to raise the specter of “socialized medicine” by connecting suspicion toward bigger government with

the fear that regulating prices would reduce the quality of care. Just as government control over prices

decreased the incentive for innovation and quality control in Soviet Russia, Clinton’s opponents

argued, establishing maximum reimbursement rates would reduce competition among physicians and

hospitals.

The comparisons between America’s health care system and some of the sensationalized tales of

malpractice under Socialism were likely unfair. However, Clinton’s plan was complex and few inside or

outside of government actually read its provisions. In addition, some Democratic leaders were upset

that they had not been consulted in the drafting of the plan. Some Democrats even offered their own

competing plans, which led to divisions within Clinton’s own party. Other opponents utilized

misogynistic imagery against First Lady Hillary Clinton and other women who occupied leading

roles in the taskforce that drafted the president’s plan. These opponents derided the plan as “Hillary

Care,” creating the image that the president’s wife was really in charge of the White House in ways that

played upon negative images of powerful women. As a result of all these factors, Congress rejected

Clinton’s plan. Its failure cast a shadow over the rest of the Clinton administration and reduced the

ambition of his future proposals.

Contract with America

Clinton had directed much of his energy to his failed health care initiative, believing that his electoral

victory was a mandate from voters in support of his plan. Although the recession of the early 1990s

was fading, symptoms of economic decline lingered and the president had not passed any major

legislation in his first two years in office, despite enjoying a Democratic majority in both houses of

Congress. That majority soon evaporated following the 1994 midterm elections as Republicans turned

the congressional elections into a national referendum on Clinton’s first two years in office. United

under the leadership of Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich, Republicans in congressional districts

across the nation ran under the same banner and promised a new “Contract with America.” The

Figure 14.2

President Clinton

delivering the 1997 State

of the Union address

while Vice President Al

Gore (left) and House

Speaker Newt Gingrich

(right) appear in the

background.

contract itself contained a lofty preamble lauding conservative “family values.” It also included a list of

resolutions that called for tax breaks, reductions in the size of the federal government, numerous

governmental reform measures, and support for socially conservative initiatives.

Democrats countered that the contract was little more than propaganda—a vague collection of clichés

and catchphrases aimed at delivering votes rather than guiding policy. However, many of the

provisions within the contract were quite specific. For example, one provision required more

transparent accounting procedures—while another required full disclosure of the congressional

proceedings. Some of the measures resembled the Populist crusade of the century prior, such as term

limits for congressional committee chairs and an end to closed-door sessions. Even sweeping

provisions such as a Constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets every year appealed to

most Americans as the national debt approached $5 trillion during the 1994 election.

The contract placed Democratic candidates on the defensive and defined

the terms of the election in many congressional districts. Democrats

responded that many provisions of the contract might sound good in the

abstract but were either too vague to represent a clear statement of policy

or potentially dangerous because they might lead to unforeseen

consequences. For example, most Democrats conceded that the contract’s

support of the balanced-budget amendment made sense in principle. At

the same time, Democrats countered, the amendment might limit the

nation’s ability to prevail in times of war or economic crisis. However, the

Democrats did not have a similar unified platform and were vulnerable to

voter frustration after two years of controlling both Congress and the

White House. Republicans were able to solidify the association in the

minds of many voters between Democrats, higher taxes, bigger

government, and the failure of Clinton’s health care program. United

behind the Contract with America, the Republican Party captured both

houses of Congress for the first time since the 1950s.

The Republican Congress proposed dozens of bills inspired by fiscally

conservative ideas that aimed to reduce corporate and capital gains taxes.

They also sought to reduce government spending on social programs that

assisted the poor and promoted education. Federally funded programs in

the arts and humanities were especially vulnerable, along with welfare

programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Others sought to promote causes

supported by social conservatives like eliminating affirmative action, legalizing school prayer, and

banning the burning of the US flag. Few of these bills regarding socially conservative causes were ever

passed, however, and many historians believe that these measures were more designed to win the

support of conservative voters than actually become law.

Other’s criticized the Contract with America’s avoidance of the issue of abortion as evidence that the

Republicans offered only lip service to social conservatives. Although restricting abortion was a

leading conservative issue throughout the 1994 election, the contract avoided any mention of the topic.

In fact, some critics pointed out the likelihood that the contract’s “Personal Responsibility Act” would

encourage abortion. This law sought to deny additional welfare support to mothers of multiple

children. It also prohibited any federal assistance to mothers under the age of eighteen.

Opponents of abortion were the most loyal supporters of the Republican ascendency and hoped the

party would finally reverse Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal once again. However, most within

the Republican majority avoided the controversial issue. Laws banning flag-burning passed the House

of Representatives but were defeated in the Senate. These were largely symbolic gestures, however,

because the Supreme Court had long maintained that such displays were protected under the Bill of

Rights. Social conservatives continued to win supporters through populist appeals against a “liberal”

Supreme Court that outlawed school prayer while protecting flag-burning. Many political observers

were quick to point out that the majority of justices had been appointed by Republican presidents.

Others argued that the Republicans spoke the language of the New Right but were more likely to

pursue fiscally conservative policies once in office. As a result, many social conservatives felt betrayed

when the Republican Congress did not unite behind legislation outlawing abortion.

When it came to fiscal politics and governmental reform, the Republican majority honored their

campaign promises and aggressively promoted the provisions of the Contract with America during the

1995 and 1996 legislative sessions. The most significant of these provisions was the proposed

Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment required Congress to submit

a balanced budget each year unless three-fifths of both houses of Congress agreed to waive the

requirement. The intent of the amendment was to reverse the annual deficits that had accumulated

each year. Defenders of the amendment argued that members of the House of Representatives could

seldom be counted on to cut popular governmental programs or raise taxes given the realities of the

two-year election cycle. Given the measure’s popularity among a public that had grown wary of the

growing national deficit, the bill passed the House. However, it failed to garner the necessary two-

thirds vote in the Senate and was never forwarded to the states for ratification.

A second measure intended to cut government waste gave the president of the United States the

authority to sign a bill into law while rejecting certain attached provisions called “riders.” Riders were

provisions that were frequently attached to a proposed bill in order to secure the support of a specific

member of Congress who might have otherwise voted against the bill. For example, a law regulating

mine safety might be unpopular with a few members of a particular congressional committee

overseeing such matters. To secure their support, a rider providing federal funding for a bridge or

other project in each of these members’ districts might be added as a rider to win their support. Riders

were usually not this overt, but they did result in billions of dollars being spent on “pet” projects that

might not have passed Congress on their own merit. The Republican Congress approved a law granting

presidential authority to delete riders while approving the law itself through the “line-item veto.”

However, a subsequent decision by the US Supreme Court declared that a president’s use of the line-

item veto was an unconstitutional subversion of the powers of the legislative branch. As a result, the

line-item veto was a short-lived reform.

Budget Crisis and the 1996 Election

Although Clinton had championed the role of government in uplifting the poor in 1992, the

Republican victory of 1994 demonstrated that reducing welfare spending was still a popular issue

among voters. Attempting to chart a course between witch hunts for chimerical “welfare queens” and

blaming poverty on the greed of the wealthy, Clinton hoped to promote reform while bolstering his

image as a moderate. Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it” by limiting direct payments and

increasing federal funding for job training.

The president’s reform policies borrowed heavily from Republican ideas regarding welfare. For

example, Clinton supported a provision that would have placed a time limit on the number of months

a person could receive benefits. In addition, noncitizens were ineligible for any payments under

Clinton’s plan, regardless of whether they were legal residents. Clinton also backed an anticrime bill

that provided cities and states with $30 billion to hire additional officers. This law passed Congress,

and also introduced the standard of three convictions leading to lifetime imprisonment for federal

crimes. This “three strikes” rule was soon adopted by many state governments. With existing laws that

made the possession of even small quantities of illegal drugs a felony, the prison population that had

grown so dramatically during the War on Drugs continued to expand. Clinton also backed an increase

to the minimum wage (from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour) that won the support of liberals and the working

class.

From the perspective of many House Republicans, Clinton was “stealing” some of their most popular

ideas. Republicans responded by making their promise to reduce the size of government and balance

the federal budget the cornerstone of their platform. The issue resonated with voters, was consistent

with Republican ideas about reducing spending, and supported the conservative goal of liquidating the

welfare state. Interpreting their dramatic victory in the congressional elections of 1994 as a mandate to

slash government programs, Republicans closed ranks behind a budget and tax plan proposed by

House leaders.

Clinton submitted a budget that also enacted significant cuts but retained a $200 billion deficit. The

Republicans also submitted a budget. Because their plan included tax breaks and increases for defense

spending, the Republicans had to make even deeper cuts to numerous social programs. The

Republican plan did not spare popular programs such as Medicare and federally subsidized school

lunches, two politically sacred programs that had ruined the political careers of those who opposed

them in the past. Clinton and the Democrats responded by hammering away at the apparent support

of their opponents for billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, no tax cuts for the poor and the

middle class, and reductions for programs benefitting the neediest children and seniors.

The Republican plan to reduce taxes for the wealthy and corporations while appearing to support

plans that would take food from children and medicine from seniors astounded political observers.

However, the Democratic Party also appeared to be its own worst enemy and a party divided among

itself. Even as the Democrats found some unity in their counteroffensive against the Republican

budget, the division between the president and more liberal leaders of his party remained. This gulf

was exacerbated by the 1994 election, which had resulted in the defeat of Southern and Midwestern

Democrats that had supported the president. These were the regions where the new Republican

strategy had worked the best, and they were also the regions where Democrats were more likely to

subscribe to Clinton’s moderate views. Those Democrats that had survived the 1994 election tended to

be from more liberal and urban Congressional districts. These Democrats opposed Clinton’s

acceptance of deep cuts to social programs. They were especially angered by Clinton’s revised budget,

which included modest cuts for Medicaid. From their perspective, the president was surrendering a

key issue that might have won seniors back to the Democratic fold.

Congress and the president spent the majority of 1995 and 1996 wrangling over budgetary matters.

When the Senate and the president refused to approve the House budget, Gingrich and the

Republicans refused to compromise, which led to a temporary shutdown of nonessential federal

services. National parks and federal offices closed while payments for millions of government

employees and recipients of Social Security were delayed. Although the shutdown was caused by a

refusal of both sides to compromise, most Americans blamed outspoken Republicans such as Gingrich

for the shutdown. The Republicans quickly reversed course and restored Medicare spending, yet many

Americans were convinced that Gingrich and his supporters precipitated the standoff as a political

calculation rather than an ideological commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Clinton’s strategy in the 1996 election was based on appealing to as many voters as possible by

portraying himself as a moderate within a polarized system. The strategy required distancing himself

from liberals without alienating his liberal base. The key for Clinton was to appeal to moderate

conservatives. However, if Clinton strayed too far to the political right, he risked the possibility that a

popular liberal candidate might challenge him for the Democratic nomination or run as a third-party

candidate. Clinton’s ability to chart a middle course on issues such as affirmative action helped

convince popular Democrats like Jesse Jackson to support Clinton’s bid for reelection rather than

entering the race. Had Jackson decided to contend Clinton’s reelection, he would have eroded the

president’s support among many liberal and minority voters. Once Jackson was on board rather than

an opponent, Clinton was able to occasionally veer to the right of his own party because there were few

other potential Democratic challengers.

Clinton faced the Republican Senator Bob Dole in the general election. At age seventy-three, Dole

was both an experienced and well-respected leader but also an aging career politician who had failed

to inspire voters during the Republican primaries. Dole’s brand of conservatism was more moderate

than the drift of the Republican Party under Gingrich. The Kansas senator expressed his personal

support of the conservative “family values” of the New Right. At the same time, he did not believe that

government should accommodate any particular religious views. Dole also believed that the attack led

by Gingrich and others upon liberals was both divisive and a distraction from the role of responsible

government.

Dole attempted to distance himself from the controversial issue of abortion, but reluctantly embraced

an antiabortion provision that was necessary to shore up his support among evangelicals. However,

Dole’s public opposition to abortion reduced the candidate’s appeal among a number of undecided

voters, especially female voters, who might have otherwise voted for Dole. Clinton also undercut the

potential of Dole’s support among undecided voters by supporting a number of socially conservative

initiatives. The most controversial of these was the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that legally

defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Clinton’s opposition to same-sex marriage

contrasted sharply with his avowed support for gay rights in the past. However, it cost him few votes

given the unlikelihood that gay-marriage supporters would vote for a Republican.

Dole seemed noncommittal himself when it came to the budgetary matters. The senator called for a 15

percent tax cut for all Americans while promising to increase defense spending and balance the

budget. Voters asked how Dole could deliver these seemingly irreconcilable objectives, a question the

Republican candidate seemed to dodge as he gave a series of uninspiring speeches across the nation.

Clinton matched Dole’s travel schedule, tipping the balance between running for president and being

the president as he crisscrossed the country and turned every address to the nation into a stump

speech.

Clinton’s campaign also may have crossed the boundary between fundraising and selling access to the

president. Clinton fundraisers allowed dozens of foreign nationals, some with shadowy connections

and apparent agendas, to meet with the president for a price. Later investigations would show that

Clinton’s campaign was even financed by allowing major donors to stay in the White House’s famed

Lincoln bedroom. The aggressive fundraising allowed Clinton to approach the massive funding of the

traditionally probusiness Republican Party. While Clinton’s possible fundraising violations drew the

most attention, both campaigns pushed the limits of campaign-finance regulations. For example,

recent legislation limited the amount of money an individual or corporation could donate to a

particular candidate. However, these same laws permitted unlimited donations of “soft money,” which

could be used to support a particular issue or party. Both campaigns skirted these restrictions,

financing advertisements that implicitly endorsed a candidate. They also made use of political action

committees and other proxy organizations to evade the law’s funding limits.

The gender gap in presidential elections had historically been almost imperceptible. In 1996, however,

Dole polled slightly more votes among men while 16 percent more women voted for Clinton. With this

unprecedented support of female voters, Clinton won a decisive victory with 379 votes in the Electoral

College to Dole’s 159. Even if Dole managed to win all of independent candidate Ross Perot’s 8 million

votes, Clinton would have still won the popular vote by a slim margin.

Domestic Affairs in Clinton’s Second Term

The 1996 presidential election was about personalities and featured Clinton’s ability to adopt popular

conservative ideas and programs as his own. Clinton best demonstrated this ability regarding the issue

of welfare reform. In 1996, Clinton supported a plan that eliminated Aid to Families with Dependent

Children (AFDC), a federal welfare program that had provided cash payouts to poor families since its

creation as part of the Social Security Act of 1935. The new law replaced AFDC with Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This program contained stricter regulations and a two-

year limit that applied to able-bodied adults.

Perhaps ironically, this time limit was specifically mentioned in the 1994 Contract with America.

Clinton made only one significant modification to the Republican idea: if an able-bodied adult who

had been removed from the welfare rolls drifted back into poverty, the two-year clock would restart

and the individual could receive welfare once again. Clinton’s plan also capped lifetime benefits at five

years, after which an able-bodied person would be completely ineligible for government aid. Clinton’s

TANF plan even borrowed from the New Federalism of Nixon by having individual states administer

the funding for the program. States were granted wide latitude in determining how their TANF

programs are administered. Some states placed even shorter limits on the amount of time a person

might draw benefits and also required proof that an individual was actively searching for a job.

Liberals felt that Clinton’s TANF plan betrayed their party’s commitment to providing a safety net for

the poor. These individuals pointed out that the vast majority of AFDC recipients were dependent

children, as the name of the now-defunct plan suggested. They also reminded voters that 11 percent of

the population and 20 percent of children were below the federally established poverty level.

Defenders of the plan argued that states would be more effective in administering funds and better

able to make sure children were still provided for, even after their parents had used up their eligibility

for welfare. Critics of the state-level plan also pointed out that many poor Americans migrated

frequently in search of work. They feared that families might “fall through the cracks” of the system as

they moved from one state to another and had to reapply and wait for benefits.

Clinton’s popularity increased during his second term—largely due to an economic boom and slight tax

reductions for the middle class. Real estate and corporate profits grew rapidly and were reflected in

rising stock values that benefitted more and more Americans given the popularity of mutual funds and

self-service online brokers. The boom was especially evident in the technology-dominated NASDAQ

stock exchange, which quadrupled during Clinton’s second term. Clinton’s popularity defied a series of

investigations into his own finances, which began during his first year in office. In 1993, an

independent government investigator responded to allegations of malfeasance regarding the Clinton

family’s real-estate investments in the Whitewater River Valley of Arkansas. Investigator Ken Starr

soon expanded the search to include Clinton’s fundraising activities, the use of government travel

funds, and the disappearance of files related to these investigations. Although each investigation raised

questions regarding the character and conduct of the president, the investigations turned up little

concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

The investigation may have tarnished the image of the Clinton administration, but most Americans

quickly grew tired of the very technical legal questions about what appeared to be at most a minor and

complicated violation. Investigations regarding Clinton’s personal life, however, quickly became

fodder for late-night talk shows and entered conversations around the country. A former Arkansas

employee named Paula Jones accused the former governor of both sexual harassment and a

consensual extramarital affair. Once again, there was little evidence that Clinton had committed a

crime, and Jones failed to collect the hundreds of thousands of dollars she sought.

The Jones affair was closely followed by a more serious revelation of a sexual relationship with a White

House intern. For months, the nation largely ignored world events, health care reform, and other

budgetary concerns while the sordid details of the Monica Lewinsky scandal came to light. Given the

relentless and apparently personal nature of independent counsel Ken Starr’s previous investigations,

many Americans discredited the evidence Starr produced regarding the Lewinsky scandal. However,

they also refused to believe the president’s denials and were angered when Clinton later revealed that

he had lied under oath in an effort to cover up the affair. It was for this crime rather than the affair

itself that Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. However, the Senate refused to

remove the president from office, and most Americans agreed that his indiscretion was neither a high

crime nor a misdemeanor. Perhaps unfairly, by the time it was all over, most Americans had a lower

opinion of Kenneth Starr, Lewinsky, and even the president’s wife than the man who had lied and

committed adultery.

Clinton’s ability to escape scandal angered conservatives who had hoped the Lewinsky affair would

become the Democrat’s Watergate. In the preface of his Contract with America, Newt Gingrich and

other conservatives had promised to restore the dignity of Congress and end the “cycle of scandal and

disgrace” many Americans now associated with high political office. Gingrich was among the

president’s leading inquisitors and perhaps the loudest voice of those who called for Clinton’s

resignation or removal. Ironically, a handful of other Republicans who led the charge against Clinton

were later convicted of improper sexual relations with underage congressional pages. Gingrich himself

was found to be having an extramarital affair with a much younger member of his staff who later

became his third wife. Gingrich soon resigned from office after facing ethics charges and criticism for

his personal life.

Figure 14.3

Clinton’s continued invincibility to scandal led some to compare the president to the “Teflon” coating

that prevented material from sticking to pots and pans. However, Clinton’s ability to withstand

multiple scandals likely had more to do with the economy than any other factor. The official budgetary

surpluses announced by the Clinton administration in its final year were the result of an economic

boom that produced increased tax receipts. As a result, Clinton presided over an era of prosperity that

allowed the federal government to produce balanced budgets and even a small surplus in Clinton’s

final years. Despite all of the debate in the early 1990s about the need for sacrifice, the economic boom

of the middle and late 1990s created millions of new jobs that allowed the government to balance the

budget while lowering taxes and avoiding controversial reductions to popular government programs.

Violence at Home and Abroad

Attorney General Janet Reno played a much more public role than most attorney generals, beginning

in the spring of 1993 with her controversial decision to lay siege to the compound of cult leader David

Koresh in Waco, Texas. The compound caught fire during the government raid and ATF agents

entered to find that over seventy of Koresh’s followers had either been killed or committed suicide.

Three years later, two domestic terrorists cited the raid as justification for a deadly attack on a federal

building in America’s heartland.

The Oklahoma City Bombing of April 19, 1995, claimed 168 lives, making it the most deadly act of

terrorism on American soil up to that time. In an era when the nation was politically divided, this

cowardly and senseless attack reminded Americans of their commonalities. Millions of complete

strangers donated money for the victims’ families. Others waited in long lines hoping to donate blood

that might aid the hundreds who were wounded in the attack. The president’s moving speech also

restored his sagging public image and pushed political leaders toward reconciliation. The government

responded in unusually bipartisan fashion following the attacks, providing assistance to victims and

significantly increasing funding for antiterrorism programs, which helped to thwart a number of

similar plots in the coming decade.

Americans also donated generously during international crises such as the

famines of East Africa during the mid-1980s. By 1990, the East African

nation of Somalia was affected by a crisis that could not be solved by bread

alone. Somalia had been colonized by Italy a century prior. Somalia

secured independence in 1960, but suffered from the same instability that

plagued most postcolonial nations. An expanding civil war engulfed the

The 1995 Oklahoma City

bombing was the

deadliest terrorist attack

on American soil until the

attacks on September 11,

2001.

Figure 14.4

capital city of Mogadishu in 1990 and led to the dissolution of the

government. Rival factions declared themselves in power and attempted to

assert their will by force while the people of Somalia suffered from the

combined effects of famine and civil war. Hundreds of thousands of

civilians had died, and the situation was rapidly declining when the United

Nations approved the use of troops to restore order and assure that

international aid reached civilians.

In 1992, Clinton increased the small contingent of humanitarian forces

already in place through Operation Restore Hope. Sending troops to help

distribute food and other relief supplies in a time of famine appealed to the

sensibilities of most Americans. However, it also threatened the interests

of local gangs and profiteers who had risen to power by exploiting the

famine and political disorder. Tensions quickly exploded as US troops attempted to locate and capture

local warlords who were thwarting humanitarian efforts by stealing most of the food and selling it to

purchase more weapons. In the summer of 1993, the most dangerous and powerful Somali warlord

killed two dozen UN peacekeepers from Pakistan. The bodies of these humanitarian troops were

mutilated by the supporters of this warlord to send a message to any who dared to oppose them.

US Special Forces responded with a message of their own, launching an ambitious raid against this

particular warlord in October 1993. The conflict quickly escalated into the Battle of Mogadishu

when rebel forces shot down two Black Hawk helicopters and disabled several other vehicles with

rocket-propelled grenades. US troops under assault and cut off from their base rallied until a rescue

operation secured their safety. However, eighteen soldiers had been killed. Absent a clear threat to the

security of the United States and shocked by graphic images of rebel soldiers dragging the bodies of US

troops through the streets, Clinton and the US public favored withdrawal of US forces.

In the wake of the Battle of Mogadishu, a hasty and precarious ceasefire

agreement was reached in the spring of 1994. Clinton’s decision to

completely withdraw from Somalia following this tenuous “peace” drew

heavy criticism. Many recognized that local warlords would simply resume

their assault against the people once US forces left the region. These

individuals believed that the United States was abandoning its

peacekeeping mission and believed Clinton had defaulted on his promise

to restore peace and stability in Somalia. However, few American or UN

Marines search a

Mogadishu market for

caches of hidden

weapons prior to the

1993 Battle of Mogadishu

that was popularized by

the movie Black Hawk

Down.

Figure 14.5

Following the Rwandan

Genocide in 1994, many

Hutus fled the country

and sought safety in

makeshift camps such as

this refugee camp in

nearby Zaire.

officials were willing to devote the material and human resources required

to reach that objective. Armed with hindsight, some critics believe that the

hasty withdrawal from Somalia represented a lost opportunity to develop

goodwill in the Muslim world. At the very least, these individuals believe

that the early exit of US forces emboldened those such as Al Qaeda who

had provided support to some of the area warlords.

Ethnic conflict erupted in the African nation of Rwanda in April 1994. The

conflict in Rwanda represented the combination of a century of

imperialism and decades of ethnic conflict between members of the Tutsi

minority and Hutu majority. Seeking stability rather than development, during Rwanda’s colonial

period, the ruling Germans had placed Tutsi leaders in control. This decision inflamed existing

tensions between Tutsi leaders and the majority of Rwandans who were members of the Hutu tribe.

The Belgians later controlled Rwanda and continued the German tactic of utilizing existing divisions to

administer the colony. Like the Germans, Belgian officials played both ethnic groups against one

another.

When the Belgians were finally forced to grant Rwanda its independence in

1962, the sudden departure of the former colonial rulers created a power

vacuum that resulted in a series of civil wars that bordered on genocide. In

1994, that border was crossed when a group of Hutu warlords sought to

eliminate the Tutsis forever. The United States had no strategic interests in

the region and declined intervention. From a distance, the 1994 conflict

appeared to be simply another violent episode of ethnic strife in

postcolonial East Africa. When ten UN peacekeepers were among the early

victims of the violence that broke out in the summer of 1994, the United

States responded by calling for the complete removal of UN forces.

Dramatic pleas for help were ignored. For example, a clergy member who

had sought refuge within a hospital wrote a desperate letter calling for

help. At the time, the hospital was surrounded by Hutus armed with

machetes and ordered to kill each person inside. His appeal fell upon deaf

ears, and the entire hospital was massacred. The clergyman’s plea began

with the following words: “we wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families.”

This chilling exhortation later became the title of a powerful and graphic narrative of the killings

Figure 14.6

written from eyewitness descriptions of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. Within one hundred days,

approximately 800,000 Rwandans had been murdered, mostly civilians killed by other civilians with

machetes and other agricultural tools.

Area African nations intervened, and forces controlled by the Tutsi minority rallied and seized control

of the Rwandan government by late summer. This development prompted the mass exodus of Hutus.

Even though most Hutu refugees had not participated in the slaughter of the Tutsis, they feared

retribution. These Hutu evacuees had no place to go other than cholera-infested refugee camps.

Without an understanding of Africa’s colonial past, most Americans interpreted the problems of the

central African nation in the context of their own miseducation. Desirous for a simple solution for a

“backward” nation in the center of a continent they had never learned about in school; most adult

Americans continued to marginalize both Africa and Africans by convincing themselves that there was

simply nothing that could be done to prevent suffering in every corner of the world.

Clinton later confided that his unwillingness to intervene in Rwanda was his chief regret during his

entire eight years as president. Clinton scored high marks in the fall of 1993 when he helped to

facilitate a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the leader of the Palestinian

Liberation Organization (PLO) Yasser Arafat. As had been the case with President Carter’s

historic rapprochement between the leaders of Israel and Egypt, the simple acknowledgement by

Israel and the PLO of each other’s legitimacy may have been the most significant outcome of the

meeting. The two leaders signed an agreement regarding Palestinian sovereignty within the West Bank

and Gaza Strip—two areas that Israel had controlled since the failed 1967 invasion of Israel by Egypt,

Syria, and Jordan.

The actual negotiations occurred in Sweden, and the agreement became known as the Oslo Accords.

The formal acceptance of the Oslo Accords occurred during a White House ceremony attended by

Rabin and Arafat in September of 1993. The agreement required Israeli military forces to withdraw

from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It also created an organization to oversee the gradual transfer of

authority for these areas to the Palestinian people. Most of the details regarding the transfer were

intentionally left vague and were supposed to be decided during future negotiations. At the time, many

around the world optimistically believed that the Oslo Accords provided the framework by which a

peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be achieved.

However, details matter and neither side appeared willing to trust the

other enough to implement even the first steps they had agreed upon.

Israeli Prime Minister

Yitzhak Rabin shakes

hands with Yasser

Arafat, leader of the

Palestinian Liberation

Organization in 1993.

Many hoped this meeting

and the Oslo Accords

would lead to a peaceful

settlement of the historic

conflict between

Palestinians and Israelis.

Israel retained its military forces in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, while

Palestinian officials proved unable to reduce the violence against Israelis in

these and other areas. The Israelis also continued to construct settlements

for Jewish settlers in these areas. A vicious cycle of blame emerged where

Israelis cited continued Palestinian attacks as justification of their military

presence while the Palestinians cited the continued Israeli presence for

their actions. Future meetings brokered by President Clinton did little to

end the mutual distrust that prevented the first stages of the Oslo Accords

from being implemented. The peace process broke down as neither side

was willing to disarm or even speak out against supporters who were

committing acts of violence in their name. The violence prevented the

formation of the interim governmental agencies that were supposed to

provide Palestinians with limited sovereignty as a step toward peaceful

coexistence and the eventual creation of a Palestinian homeland.

Following the American experience in Somalia, Clinton became cautious in

his foreign policy. The president usually denied requests for troops.

Instead, he attempted to thwart genocide, famine, and the development of

nuclear and chemical weapons through policies of aid and sanctions. For example, Clinton negotiated

an agreement with North Korea to halt its attempts to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for food

and medicine that were to be distributed among the needy civilian population. Many correctly

assumed that much of the aid would be seized by the corrupt government, which would continue its

attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction. An uprising in Haiti resulted in the deployment of a

small contingent of US soldiers, mostly to reinstall the democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide

as president. Once US troops left the impoverished island, Aristide ruled the nation as a dictator, and

violence and corruption returned to the island.

The situation was particularly disturbing in the Balkans where nationalist Serbs in Bosnia, with the

support of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, had been killing Muslim civilians for many years. As

a candidate, Clinton had been critical of Bush’s refusal to intervene in the Balkans. As president,

however, Clinton followed a similar policy. Clinton maintained Bush’s arms embargo that was

intended to curb violence. This embargo disproportionately hindered the Muslim minority who had

fewer weapons to begin with. Clinton recognized the shortcomings of his approach, but he had been

deeply affected by the loss of American lives in Somalia. A political pragmatist, he devoted the bulk of

his energies to domestic matters that proved politically popular. Even in retrospect, each of Clinton’s

Figure 14.7

A US Army engineer

directs traffic across a

pontoon bridge linking

Bosnia-Herzegovina to

Croatia, where many

supplies and support

troops were staged

during the 1995–1996

peacekeeping mission in

Bosnia. This image

demonstrates the

importance of engineers

and other support troops

in modern warfare.

options regarding North Korea, Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans might have led to thousands of US

casualties and lengthy military occupations, with no guarantee of success.

Despite his attempt to avoid future deployments, the president was forced to take his attention away

from the budget debates and other domestic matters in the summer of 1995 when Bosnian Serbs under

Milosevic began slaughtering Muslims and other minorities. In July, Bosnian Serbs evicted the women

and female children from the town of Srebrenica, which had a Muslim majority, and slaughtered the

remaining 7,000 men and boys. By August, Serbian forces under Milosevic began shelling the city of

Sarajevo.

The United Nations sent a small force of 6,000 peacekeepers while the

United States debated what to do. Muslim fighters and the Croatians

tentatively worked together in a successful counteroffensive that forced

Milosevic to agree to peace talks that were held in Dayton, Ohio. The

Dayton Accords created the new Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

with a dual government backed by the belated presence of 60,000 NATO

troops. From the perspective of the West, the United States had sent its

own sons and daughters to protect civilians in a nation where it had little

strategic interest. From the perspective of Muslims in Europe and around

the world, the West’s delayed response occurred only after the bombing of

Sarajevo rather than because of years of genocidal acts against the Muslim

minority of Southern Europe.

Free Trade, Globalization, and the Environment

In 1992, many of the nations of Western and Central Europe created the

European Union (EU), a confederacy that incrementally grew in its

authority to regulate commercial and other international affairs. The

United States, Canada, and Mexico responded by forming the North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. NAFTA had

been a leading priority of Republicans and was supported by the incoming

Republican President George H. W. Bush. The agreement sought the

complete elimination of trade barriers between the three nations. NAFTA

angered many Democrats but was still supported by Clinton, who hoped to appear as a moderate and

win the support of business leaders.

Figure 14.8

Environmentalists feared that NAFTA would reduce the effectiveness of protective legislation by

encouraging corporations to relocate to Mexico. Labor unions and many individual Americans feared

that it would also result in a loss of American jobs for the same reason. NAFTA was unpopular among

most voters, partially because some politicians disingenuously equated its limited goals with the

European Union. Unlike NAFTA, the EU sought to coordinate most governmental functions and even

foresaw joint armies and a common currency. A decade later, the goal of a common currency was

achieved when EU member nations adopted the euro as their medium of exchange. However, NAFTA

has not expanded to include such collectivist policies but continues to arouse controversy among

diverse groups of voters.

Although few nations beyond Europe expressed interest in creating a common currency, major

summits were held seeking to reduce global trade restrictions. Many of these summits took place

under the auspices of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), which was signed by two

dozen nations shortly after World War II. After four decades of GATT summits, GATT itself was

replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. The WTO is an international agency

headquartered in Geneva that seeks to encourage free trade and reduce government restrictions

regarding international commerce. The WTO is charged with promoting trade and economic

development in ways that also protect the economies of member nations. However, many in the

United States and around the world have criticized the WTO as a tool of wealthy corporations in

developed nations that seek to practice new forms of economic imperialism.

These protests against globalization reached a crescendo in November of 1999 when an estimated

50,000 protesters disrupted the WTO summit in Seattle. A large number of these protesters were

college students who joined a diverse movement of citizens who believed that the WTO was fueled by a

corporate agenda. Many of the protesters were environmentalists who feared that the WTO would

make decisions that would reduce standards and enforcement of environmental protection. Many also

believed that developing industries in developing nations would be crushed by international

competition. Labor unions were also present in Seattle, fearing globalization would permit

corporations in developed nations with higher standards of living to lower wages and benefits or

simply relocate their operations abroad. Others feared that unregulated markets would lead to the

elimination of smaller companies and promote the growth of multinational corporations they believed

operated like cartels.

Many Americans viewed the protesters as lacking a positive agenda of their

own, opposing globalization but lacking their own alternative. Others

An estimated 50,000

protesters demonstrated

against the 1999 WTO

summit held in Seattle.

Many of these protesters

are dressed as sea turtles

due to their belief that

globalization doomed

many endangered

species. The novelty of

blue collar union

members marching

alongside environmental

activists in opposition to

the WTO led many to

refer to the protesters as

“teamsters and turtles.”

believed the protesters were motivated by a misguided and naïve belief in

some utopian alternative to Capitalist development. The protesters

responded that they had specific solutions and lacked only access to power,

rallying behind a brief document circulated by students at the University of

Washington and other Seattle-based colleges called the Declaration for

Global Democracy. Together, the protesters rallied behind the document’s

final exhortation of “No Globalization without Representation.” The five

points of this declaration provided a bit more substance but still appeared

vague to the document’s critics. They protested the WTO’s undemocratic

structure and nontransparent methods. The document also challenged

world leaders to ensure that human advancement rather than material

acquisition would become the standard by which they measured the

efficacy of global trade policies.

The students and their supporters also rallied behind something they

called sustainable development, a standard that included human rights,

worker safety and compensation, environmental protection, and reversal

of global inequity. However, the popular image of the 1999 protests does

not reflect the progressive tone of these goals. Similar to the labor protests

of the late nineteenth century, the message of the protesters soon became

moot when a handful of individuals became violent. In response, the police

responded with what many considered to be excessive force. Erroneous

reports that the protesters had attacked police created or solidified existing

negative images of the protesters. The same was true of sensational reports

of bystanders being assaulted. Although some news outlets printed

retractions, the image of the anti-WTO meeting being dominated by

radicals persisted and colored the view of many Americans toward those

who protested against globalization.

This concern for maintaining free trade without harming the economies of member nations led to the

derailment of several free-trade initiatives within developing countries in the early 2000s. This is

especially true in areas such as agriculture, where millions of families depend on agriculture for their

livelihood. American grain is often produced much more efficiently due to mechanization. It is also

heavily subsidized by the federal government. As a result, many nations fear that the complete

elimination of trade restrictions will result in their farmers being forced to compete with inexpensive

American grain. While many point out that this development would provide relief for many

impoverished urban dwellers, others fear that the competition would destroy the agricultural base of

developing nations. If this happened, they argue, the result would be long-term dependency on foreign

grain. The WTO launched a major series of conferences in Doha, Qatar, in 2001. The organization

continues to meet in related conferences around the globe in hopes of resolving issues regarding

agricultural subsidies and other global trade issues.

The WTO and other organizations dedicated to reducing trade barriers have also been derailed by

environmental concerns. Environmentalists have shown that certain refrigerants and aerosol sprays

deplete the layers of ozone gas in the earth’s atmosphere. These ozone layers absorb most of the

potentially damaging ultraviolet light that radiates from the sun. Scientists demonstrated that

chemical compounds in some refrigerants used in air-conditioning systems were especially dangerous

as they neutralized the ability of ozone gas to block ultraviolet rays. As a result, laws were passed in the

United States and other nations mandating the use of different refrigerants and regulating the

chemicals used in producing aerosol sprays and other manufactured goods. The global nature of

environmental concerns such as ozone depletion led to a series of UN initiatives such as the Kyoto

Protocol. The result of a global summit on reducing greenhouse gases led by Vice President Al Gore,

the Kyoto Protocol produced a binding treaty requiring developed nations to reduce their emission of

greenhouse gases. As of 2011, the Unites States is the only developed nation that has not signed the

treaty.

R E V I E W A N D C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

1. Describe the way that politics affected Clinton’s strategy regarding domestic issues such

as welfare reform. How did many of Clinton’s more liberal supporters view the president’s

attempts to be perceived as a moderate regarding welfare and other domestic issues?

2. Clinton believed that his election signified a popular mandate for his ideas regarding health

care reform. Explain why his plan failed to pass Congress, being sure to describe the

viewpoints of its supporters and its opponents.

3. Explain how Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich rose to challenge

President Clinton and the Democrats. Briefly discuss the “Contract with America” and the

electoral success of the Republican Party leading up to the election of 1996. Explain why

Gingrich and other conservatives failed to maintain this popular support and how Clinton

managed to regain high approval ratings in his second term.

4. Explain the source of the conflicts in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Somalia. Discuss

America’s response to these conflicts and analyze the effectiveness of the Clinton

administration in responding to these and other global conflicts.

5. Briefly explain the role of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Explain why

many Americans have widely different perspectives regarding these two organizations.

Why did students and a variety of other activists demonstrate against the 1999 WTO

summit in Seattle?

14.2 From the Center to the Edge: America during the

George W. Bush Administration

L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S

1. Explain the leading priorities of the Bush administration before the September 11 attack.

Summarize the perspective of Democrats and many moderate Republicans in response to

the first nine months of the new president’s administration.

2. Summarize the impact of George Bush’s presidency

3. Explain how the September 11 attack led to the invasion of Iraq from both the perspective

of the Bush administration and the critics of the president. Explain how Bush was able to

defeat John Kerry in the 2004 election, despite concerns about Iraq and the huge federal

deficits that had increased each year during Bush’s first term.

The 2000 Election and Aftermath

The primaries leading up to the 2000 election produced few surprises, with Clinton’s vice president Al

Gore and the Republican governor of Texas George W. Bush winning the nominations of their

parties. The media declared Bush the heir apparent to the Republican Party, and only Arizona senator

John McCain came close to challenging this prediction. Bush’s campaign hoped that the public would

associate Gore with the infidelity of Clinton, a man he so loyally defended throughout the president’s

impeachment hearings. The risk of this strategy, however, was that the public might also associate the

vice president with an administration that had converted budget deficits into surplus during eight

prosperous years.

Like Clinton, Al Gore had high approval ratings and experience leading both domestic and foreign

initiatives, such as the Kyoto treaty on global warming. However, Bush’s campaign succeeded in

putting Gore on the defensive regarding his relationship with Clinton, even to the point that the vice

president sought to distance himself from the administration of which he had been such an integral

part. Bush and the Republican Party deftly connected Clinton’s extramarital affairs with abortion, gay

rights, and liberal opposition to prayer in schools. The strategy had the advantage of playing to

verifiable evidence of moral decay in the White House. Rather than point out the flaws in this

assessment, Gore chose to run a rather vanilla campaign that avoided controversy. This decision was

likely influenced by political observers who predicted that Gore would win the election based on his

superior experience and intellect. Early polls agreed, predicting that the Democrats would win a very

close race. Given the controversy surrounding the election results, some would argue that these early

polls were accurate.

On paper, George W. Bush was hardly the kind of candidate that should worry the Gore campaign.

While Al Gore had navigated international treaties, Bush had barely left the country. He was known

mostly for his jovial and often juvenile disposition, a self-confessed “party boy” who had found work

through his father’s connections in the oil industry. Gore had also benefitted from family connections.

However, the vice president also had a reputation for intelligence and hard work that was the

antithesis of the reputation of the former president’s son. In response, the Bush campaign waged an

aggressive fundraising campaign and used its unparalleled resources to highlight the affable

personality of Texan George Bush in contrast to the allegedly “aristocratic” Al Gore.

The technique was a mainstay of nineteenth century politics and proved equally effective in the new

millennium as the Bush campaign slowly chipped away at the Democratic candidate’s lead.

Meanwhile, Bush seemed warm and genuine in a number of well-conceived appearances and political

advertisements. Although the result of campaign disclosure requirements, voters appreciated the

apparent straightforwardness of Bush’s advertisements, which ended with the phrase, “I’m George

Bush, and I approved this message.”

On the eve of the election, the polls were too close to predict a winner. Many Democratic leaders urged

the progressive third-party candidate Ralph Nader to drop from the race. They believed that the 2 to 3

percent of voters who were predicted to vote for Nader would support their candidate. And they

predicted that, without these voters, their candidate might not win key states such as Florida where

polls showed Gore and Bush as dead even.

The media portrayed the election as evidence that America had become divided into Democratic “blue”

states and Republican “red” states. The phenomenon of a candidate running well in a particular region

was as old as the nation itself, yet election returns did seem to validate the idea of a liberal and

conservative divide. Metropolitan districts tended to vote for Gore, while rural areas could usually be

counted on voting Republican. Gore had received half a million more votes than Bush, but America

still abided a system that awarded every electoral vote to the candidate who polled the most votes in a

particular state.

The popular vote in most states was very close, a fact that ran counter to the image of polarized “red”

and “blue” states. However, in Florida the vote was so close that state officials determined that further

investigation of voting procedures and counting methods was necessary. Bush had originally led by

about 2,000 votes, but an investigation conducted by the state’s predominantly Republican leadership

had reduced that margin to 150. The results throughout the rest of the nation were also so close that

the winner would be decided by the recount in Florida. However, the Bush campaign won an

injunction from the US Supreme Court ordering the recount to stop. As a result, all of Florida’s

electoral votes went to George Bush, and he became the next president.

The Supreme Court’s decision shocked many Americans, including the four Supreme Court justices

who dissented and the Florida Supreme Court who had ordered the recount. Later investigations by

journalists generally agreed that Bush would have still won the vote in Florida had the recount

continued. Others believed that Ralph Nader had been the “spoiler” as the vast majority of his nearly

100,000 votes in Florida alone would have gone to Gore had Nadar’s name not been on the ballot.

Most Americans agreed it was time to end the Electoral College. However, the indignation of these

voters regarding an election that appeared to be decided by attorneys and voting irregularities rather

than the will of the people soon subsided. George W. Bush was not the first president to be elected by a

minority of voters. In addition, the Electoral College could only be eliminated by passing an

amendment to the Constitution. This would require the support of political leaders in large states that

benefited from the Electoral College system. Meanwhile, if the new president supported a campaign to

eliminate the system that had resulted in his election, it might support detractors who still believed

Bush had stolen the election from Gore.

Bush began his presidency with a brilliantly conceived speech in which he humbly promised an

inclusive approach. The speech disarmed many of his critics, at least temporarily. Bush’s methods and

policies soon reanimated the left’s objections as the new president moved far to the right of the

moderate conservatism that typified his father’s administration. Bush proposed and won approval for

the largest tax cut in the nation’s history, reducing tax receipts by $1.3 trillion. What angered the left

most was that nearly all of these reductions benefitted the wealthiest 5 percent of taxpayers who were

in the highest tax brackets. Bush also sought to completely eliminate estate taxes—a tax that only

affected the heirs of wealthy descendants. Finally, Bush approved reductions in dividend and capital

gains tax rates that brought the maximum rate down to 15 percent—a rate even Reagan had rejected as

being too low.

Bush differed from Reagan in another important way. Although both utilized the moralistic language

of the New Right, Bush made the support of socially conservative views on abortion, homosexuality,

birth control, and school prayer a leading priority. He also supported controversial programs, such as

private school vouchers. This program encouraged middle and upper-class families to withdraw their

children from public schools by using tax dollars to offset some of the tuition charged by private

schools. Opponents pointed out that such a system would cripple the nation’s public school system,

reduce civic participation, and harm the children of less affluent parents who could not afford private

school tuition even with federal vouchers.

Bush demonstrated a similar willingness to withdraw from the international community. The Bush

administration reversed the postwar tradition of building international coalitions and working

through agencies such as NATO and the United Nations. In addition to the sudden refusal to

participate in environmental treaties like Kyoto that the United States had actually initiated, Bush also

abrogated the antiballistic missile treaty signed by Richard Nixon. Bush also ignored bipartisan

support for treaties restricting the use of land mines and testing nuclear weapons. In contrast to the

moderate Republican and Democratic leadership of his father and Bill Clinton, George W. Bush had

moved the federal government far to the right of center.

Bush also rescinded most of Clinton’s executive orders dealing with environmental protection,

shocking the world with his declaration that America would not participate in the Kyoto Protocol on

global warming. Most of Bush’s decisions regarding the environment produced outrage among the left,

including his support of a controversial law that would permit oil drilling in national wildlife refuges.

Legislation deregulating the oil industry passed only after removing these provisions. Pundits were

quick to point out that Bush and Cheney’s connections in the oil industry formed the basis of their

wealth and political connections. Bush’s affable personality and folksy populist appeal insulated him

from some of this criticism during his first years in office. More troubling for the president was the

growing disapproval of his policies among moderate Republicans, some of whom even left the

Republican Party in protest.

September 11, 2001

On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen terrorists seized control of four commercial airliners

flying over the East Coast. The hijackers had attended flight schools and had planned a suicide mission

that was calculated to cause the greatest physical destruction and psychological terror on the citizens

of the United States. Two of the aircraft crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in

New York City. A third crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, DC. The forth plane was overtaken

by passengers before it could reach the destination the terrorists intended to destroy, crashing instead

in a field in Pennsylvania. These four plane crashes resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 people

on September 11, including nearly 400 emergency responders. The attack was approximately twenty

times more destructive than the Oklahoma City bombing and was greeted by America’s enemies as a

tremendous success. But whether the attack achieved its objective of terrorizing Americans remained a

question that could only be answered by the response of the American people.

Like most life-changing events, September 11 brought out the best and worst in the American people

and their government. When the Bush administration identified Al Qaeda as the organization

responsible for the attack, many Americans responded with rage directed at anyone they suspected

might be Muslim or from the Middle East. However, most Americans responded with displays of

patriotism and rejected populist anger, choosing instead to donate money to relief efforts and provide

for the families of victims. Millions flooded local blood banks, gave generously to the American Red

Cross and other relief agencies, and found extra time to volunteer with community organizations or

reach out to estranged friends and family members. Military officials feared that volunteer enlistments

would end, given the likelihood of mandatory deployments in the future. Instead, they found

recruiting offices filled with young people willing to risk everything for an opportunity to serve their

country.

Figure 14.9

The September 11 attacks led to the deaths of 3,000 innocent people, including 400 emergency workers. This

map shows the flight paths of the four hijacked planes used in the terrorist attacks.

One of the most unlikely controversies arose from the outpouring of support for charitable groups,

some of which soon found that they had received more donated resources than they could effectively

use to aid the victims of the attacks. Other groups sought to aid the city of New York and those who

had been only indirectly affected. For example, the economy of New York City was especially

vulnerable as tens of thousands of workers were without employment while the city spent millions of

dollars dealing with the crisis. The national economy also suffered temporary setbacks. The stock

market reopened with dramatic losses as some investors fled in the wake of uncertainty. Other

Americans felt it was their patriotic duty to buy stocks or otherwise stimulate the economy through

personal spending in support of the millions of employees who worked in the tourist and airline

industries that had suffered in the wake of the attacks. Most Americans responded with relative calm,

spent a few extra moments with loved ones, donated money and blood to local charities, purchased

flags in record numbers, and went back to work.

September 11 was more than a life-changing moment for most Americans; it also defined an era and

drove the history of the early twenty-first century more than any other event. Americans of various

political persuasions united, at least temporarily, behind their president and his administration’s

declaration of war against terrorism. An undeclared war in Afghanistan also received popular support,

at least initially, as military leaders attempted to find Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and those who

Figure 14.10

had supported his terrorist network. Bin Laden was one of over fifty children born to a billionaire in

Yemen whose fortune had been made in construction fields related to the oil industry. Bin Laden

inherited much of his father’s wealth but turned from his family’s secular orientation. Although he had

technically fought on the same side as the US-backed Mujahideen who fought against the Soviet

occupation of Afghanistan, bin Laden had a deep hatred of the West. Although the West and its

financial system was the source of his family’s wealth, he believed the West was also responsible for

the decline of his version of Islam in the Middle East.

The existence of a well-funded and well-organized terrorist network presented both new opportunities

and challenges for America’s intelligence and military. In contrast to individual terrorists who were

practically impossible to detect until they committed their actions, bin Laden’s extensive resources

provided US intelligence agents with targets they could track. On the other hand, the existence of a

well-funded network operated by men who were often well-educated and from wealthy or middle-class

backgrounds made tracking these men more difficult. Bin Laden’s network was an interconnected

system of terrorist cells averaging five individuals deeply embedded in American society. Usually only

one member of the cell even knew the other members and served as the point of contact for other cells.

While this individual linked the members of the cell to a larger network, they seldom knew how to

contact anyone else in the organization. As a result, communication only flowed downward—a

safeguard against one member of the organization revealing the existence of the leaders or other cells.

Many of these terrorists had been in the United States for years, waiting until they were contacted with

instructions.

As a result, the Bush administration declared that new and more aggressive methods were needed to

counter the threat of terrorism. Congress responded in October 2001 by approving the Patriot Act.

This law expanded the powers of the federal government, permitting the use of covert surveillance

against persons suspected of having connections to a terrorist plot or network. Opponents countered

that the Patriot Act was an unwarranted intrusion against the right of privacy. Others feared that the

Patriot Act was only the first in a series of laws that might restrict the rights of citizens. Some believed

that the Patriot Act was a peculiar reaction to counter terrorists, especially as the president repeatedly

claimed that the terrorists hated Americans for the freedoms they enjoyed.

While many civil rights violations would surface in later years, there was

little curtailment of free speech. For example, only a handful of

newspapers refused to print a Boondocks comic strip that suggested the

Reagan administration’s support of the Mujahideen during the 1980s had

Surrounded by leading

Republican congressmen,

President George W.

Bush signs the

controversial Patriot Act

into law on October 26,

2011.

aided Al Qaeda. Conservative commentators such as Anne Coulter

expressed violent and virulent language toward American Muslims but

were also not censored. Radical poets such as Amiri Baraka received

threats for an uncompromising poem titled Somebody Blew Up America.

Yet neither Baraka nor the right-wing commentators who called for

retaliation against Muslims were censored by the government. The first

line of Baraka’s poem continues to resonate with Americans as they

attempt to balance freedom and security. “All thinking people oppose

terrorism—both domestic and international,” Baraka exclaimed, “but one

should not be used to cover up the other.”

War in Iraq and Afghanistan

Bush demanded that the Taliban, a regime that controlled much of

Afghanistan, hand over Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. When this demand was ignored, the United

States launched air strikes against Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds throughout Afghanistan in

October of 2001. These attacks were followed by American and British ground forces that quickly

overwhelmed Taliban fighters and took control of major cities, such as the Afghan capital of Kabul.

However, these troops were unable to capture bin Laden or his supporters as they fled to the remote

and mountainous terrain along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Military resources that might have resulted in the capture of bin Laden and elimination of his terrorist

network were soon diverted to Iraq by early 2003. Disregarding the conflicting worldviews and deep

distrust between Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the Bush

administration became convinced that Hussein was somehow involved with the September 11 plot.

Bush also became increasingly convinced that Saddam Hussein was developing or already possessed

chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons he would share with terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

Afghanistan became a holding action where depleted regiments sought to defend a beleaguered

Afghan government. US forces in Afghanistan also sought to prevent the growth of the Taliban and Al

Qaeda rather than eliminate them, while the Bush administration shifted the bulk of military resources

to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

History provides few reasons to believe that the Iraqi leader was working with Al Qaeda. Saddam

Hussein was deeply opposed to the Islamic fundamentalism of bin Laden. In fact, Hussein had led Iraq

to the brink of civil war in his efforts to purge the influence of bin Laden’s ideology from his nation.

Bin Laden viewed Hussein as an “infidel.” So deep was bin Laden’s dislike of the Iraqi dictator that he

had met with Saudi leaders following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991 and offered to personally lead a

crusade of 100,000 Muslim warriors against Hussein.

At the same time, however, history could also offer little to explain or predict the attacks of September

11. Saddam Hussein had long sought weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration worried he

might now possess. Even if an alliance with bin Laden was unlikely, Hussein was a danger by himself.

The Iraqi dictator had used chemical weapons in the past, harbored anti-American sentiment, and had

supported a terrorist plot to assassinate George H. W. Bush when he was president. Iraq was part of

“an axis of evil,” the younger Bush explained to the American public. For George W. Bush, the lesson

of September 11 seemed to be the importance of taking proactive steps against America’s enemies.

Closely related to this idea was the foreign policy directive that would soon be known as the Bush

Doctrine: the United States would wage preemptive attacks—with or without the support of the

United Nations and its allies—if America’s leaders believed such an action was necessary to counter a

credible threat to their nation’s security.

The Bush administration sought to convince a wary nation to apply this doctrine to Iraqi dictator

Saddam Hussein. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had changed his views from 1991 when he

had supported the decision to leave Hussein in power rather than face the difficulties of occupation

and reconstruction. Vice President Dick Cheney was even more determined that Iraq must be

invaded, declaring in several press conferences that American intelligence analysts had determined

that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (known colloquially as WMDs) when in fact such

reports did not exist. Secretary of State and former General Colin Powell disagreed, at least at first.

He believed that invading Iraq was unwise and branded his own administration’s efforts to find

evidence that Iraq was a bigger threat than Al Qaeda as “lunacy.”

Despite Powell’s efforts, Bush’s inner circle appears to have already made the decision to invade Iraq.

The president ordered Rumsfeld to prepare secret plans for the invasion less than three months after

the September 11 attacks. These preliminary plans were created without the input of military leaders

or Congress. In fact, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not even aware the Bush administration was

contemplating the invasion of Iraq for the next six months. In the meantime, Bush and Cheney tried to

rally public support for the idea of a preemptive strike by creating the connection in the public mind

between Hussein’s previous bellicosity and his 1998 decision to expel UN weapons inspectors from

Iraq. By the end of 2002, the administration had changed its message from one that counseled Iraq

might have chemical and biological weapons to one that declared Hussein not only possessed these

WMDs but was also on the verge of creating a nuclear arsenal. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, most

Americans were still upset at the lack of preemptive action to stop Osama bin Laden. If preemptive

action could stop Hussein from launching a devastating attack, Americans asked, what possible

argument could be made for doing nothing?

At the same time, reports circulated indicating the unlikelihood that Hussein presented a serious

threat to the United States. Some military analysts worried that an American invasion of Iraq might

provide Hussein a pretext to use weapons of mass destruction, or any of the modern weapons he was

known to possess. An invasion by the world’s leading military power might even make it appear that

Hussein used these weapons in defense of his beleaguered nation.

Powell might have gone public with his reservations or resigned in protest and hoped that his

departure might produce a new sense of caution in the White House. Instead, Powell focused his

efforts toward advising the president of the dangers and liabilities he believed Rumsfeld and Cheney

were minimizing. The invasion would likely succeed much like it had in 1991, Powell counseled the

president. After the invasion, Powell cautioned, “you will be the proud owner” of a nation without a

government or infrastructure. The United States would then be responsible for the welfare of the Iraqi

people, Powell continued, many of whom harbored deep resentments toward the West. “You break it,

you own it,” the secretary of state concluded in summation.

Powell also advised the president that the United States should only consider an invasion after first

confirming the existence of WMDs and securing the support of the United Nations. The coalition that

paired Western and Arabic nations against Hussein in 1991 had been the key to its international

legitimacy, Powell argued. Even if WMDs were found to exist, Powell implored, the president must at

least follow his father’s path of coalition building before considering a second Iraq invasion.

Bush agreed to seek a UN resolution requiring Hussein to submit to an international inspection team

that would search for WMDs. The Security Council approved the resolution unanimously, and Hussein

agreed to permit the inspectors in the country. The inspectors did not find any evidence of WMDs, a

situation that placed the Bush administration in a difficult position after its earlier rhetoric. However,

the Iraqi dictator did not cooperate with many of the inspectors’ requests as the UN resolution

required. As a result, there appeared a high probability that WMDs were hidden in a location the

inspectors were forbidden to search. As Bush supporters explained, the absence of positive evidence

proving the existence of WMDs was not the same as evidence proving WMDs were not present.

Determined not to allow anything to deter its previous decision, the Bush administration ignored

intelligence reports by the United Nations, CIA, and US military; disregarded the advice of Secretary of

State Colin Powell; and launched the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. “We can choose to meet this

threat now,” Bush counseled the nation, “before it can appear suddenly in our skies.” The president’s

rhetoric was clearly meant to connect Operation Iraqi Freedom to the September 11 attacks. Most

Americans were unaware of the tenuous connections between Hussein and bin Laden, but sensed both

uncertainty and déjà vu as they once again watched rockets hit Baghdad on CNN. Still, most

Americans supported their president and his decision to remove Saddam from power due to the

possibility that he might use WMDs against their nation. At the same time, most also indicated

reservations about the long-term consequences of what they were witnessing. Even if there were no

weapons of mass destruction, they hoped that removing Saddam Hussein might promote peace and

stability in the region.

In stark contrast to the first Gulf War, only Britain provided significant military support. A handful of

other nations sent token forces to participate in the American-led “coalition of the willing,” but many

of these demanded US aid in exchange. The devastating “shock and awe” of US airpower was very

similar to the first Gulf War, however. Combined with a rapid deployment of ground forces that

converged upon Baghdad, Iraqi troops were once again overwhelmed and surrendered en masse.

Others simply threw down their weapons and attempted to blend into the civilian population.

Many Iraqi civilians cheered the Americans as liberators or simply displayed a calculated neutrality to

an outcome they knew they could not alter. After six weeks of military operations, 138 US soldiers had

lost their lives, but Iraq was firmly under US control. Americans and Iraqis were hopeful that efforts to

draft a new constitution and hold democratic elections would usher in a new era of freedom and

prosperity for their nation. On May 1, 2003, a jubilant George Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft

carrier and declared that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” in front of a banner that read

“Mission Accomplished.” For a brief moment, even the president’s critics happily concluded that

Operation Iraqi Freedom might just be the first step toward stability and democracy in the Middle

East.

A few months later, Bush’s premature declaration of victory became fodder for those same critics.

Rumsfeld’s invasion plans failed to prepare for the emergence of an opposition movement and

neglected provisions for police and public services. The Bush administration’s fateful decision to

disband the Iraqi military and police created a power vacuum that the 130,000 US troops struggled to

fill. Priceless relics were stolen from museums while the nation’s civilian infrastructure was thrown

Figure 14.11

A US soldier and two

children walk together

down a road in Kirkuk,

Iraq, in 2005. Similar to

previous US military

operations, deployed

troops often used their

own pay to purchase

things that local children

into chaos. Iraqi armories were raided for weapons by insurgents loyal to Saddam Hussein and other

anti-US factions, all of whom had managed to evade capture by US forces. Anti-US sentiment rose

quickly as food shortages, water and power outages, and looting took its toll on the largely jobless

civilian population. Military and state department officials had prepared for each of these problems.

However, most of their advice had been disregarded by Bush’s inner circle of advisors who equated

constructive criticism with disloyalty. Even commonsensical suggestions to protect US soldiers by

adding armor to vehicles or ensuring adequate numbers of bulletproof vests went unheeded. Without

adequate resources or training, soldiers who did not speak Arabic or Kurdish did their best to act as

civil engineers, police, and providers of other vital services.

Despite the lack of material support or adequate training, US troops rallied and eventually stabilized

most of the nation. However, insurgents who opposed the US occupation emerged as a major obstacle

to the transition between dictatorship and democracy. US military fatalities soon doubled after Bush’s

declaration of victory. Insurgents used stolen and smuggled rockets and small arms alongside

improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that were set to explode on roadsides or in the midst of the

civilian population. Recruitment centers for the US-trained Iraqi police were especially targeted.

Ironically, the violence against Iraqis prevented the departure of US forces who had hoped to oversee a

peaceful and rapid transition toward self-government. Fatalities among large numbers of Iraqi

civilians and a few US soldiers became daily occurrences.

A year later, most Americans still supported the decision to invade Iraq.

The American public was especially supportive of the men and women of

the US armed services who were daily sacrificing their lives for a mission

their commander-in-chief explained only in the vaguest terms. A nascent

antiwar movement began to emerge, and some even made comparisons

between Iraq and Vietnam. However, even those who opposed the war

usually phrased their opposition in terms of support for the troops. The

respect shown to soldiers demonstrated a marked difference in the way

Americans viewed the military in the early twenty-first century compared

to previous eras.

Despite the hardships, the troops continued to support one another and

the mission they hoped would eventually end with their safe return and

peace for the Iraqi people. Others simply rallied around support of one

another. With the lack of clear guidance and in a world where the

needed such as school

supplies and sports

equipment. Of course, the

most popular item

among children was

candy, as indicated by

the large bag (sent by

this soldier’s family) that

is being distributed by

one of the children.

battlefront was all around them, the only thing these troops could trust for

sure was each other. Even if their leaders could not agree on why they were

there, these men and women shared a soldier’s faith that together they

could achieve any mission.

The Economy and the 2004 Election

Bush’s tax cuts combined with rising military spending to produce soaring

deficits. The President’s evasiveness to questions about WMDs and exit

strategies following the invasion of Iraq led many to question whether the

Bush administration had manipulated facts and led the nation into a war it

had not prepared for. Many military leaders quietly opposed the invasion

of Iraq because it had weakened the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Uncertainty toward Iraq, which

was daily descending into a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis led many voters to conclude that the

President failed to prepare its military for the realities of occupation.

The 2004 presidential election pitted Bush against Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. While

questions surfaced about Bush’s service in the National Guard, John Kerry was wounded three times

and received medals for bravery during the Vietnam War. Kerry also joined the antiwar movement

upon his return, believing along with many veterans that the Johnson and Nixon administrations had

deceived the nation regarding Vietnam. In response, the Bush campaign decided to attack Kerry’s

military record through an elaborate deception.

Leading Texas Republican donors bankrolled a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which

enrolled Vietnam veterans, most of whom had never met Kerry. The group then sponsored numerous

television ads that claimed Kerry’s honorable service record and medals for courage were based on

lies. Kerry and dozens of veterans who served with him attempted to refute the ads, and the SEC later

fined the organization. However, because Kerry had been such a prominent antiwar activist, many

Americans accepted the image of Kerry’s service as less than honorable. The attack on Kerry added a

new term to the political lexicon. “Swiftboating” entered the dictionary as a strategy based on

spreading negative lies about one’s opponents.

One of the consequences of the swift boat deception was that Kerry decided to avoid any discussion of

military affairs. This included criticism regarding the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq and

the hunt for bin Laden. It also meant that Kerry did not challenge Bush with questions about the

Figure 14.12

A New Orleans resident

contrasts the use of

government money to

fund war in Iraq while

the city was left without

adequate levees that

could have prevented the

flood. The Bush

administration came

under heavy criticism for

its delayed response to

Hurricane Katrina.

decision to invade Iraq. Polls once again predicted a close election. Bush advisor Karl Rove and other

national Republican leaders counseled GOP supporters in each state to place laws barring gay

marriage on state and local ballots as a means to ensure that every conservative in the nation voted in

the 2004 election. The strategy proved effective as voter turnout was the highest since the 1960s. Bush

prevailed with 286 electoral votes to Kerry’s 252.

Bush’s Second Term

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and dozens of surrounding

communities in Mississippi and Louisiana. Around 2,000 people perished throughout the Gulf Coast,

with the highest rate of fatalities occurring in New Orleans. The city was almost completely destroyed

as the storm crested over the flood walls. Because the city lies below sea level, tens of thousands of

New Orleans residents who had been unable to heed the evacuation order were now stranded and

without food or drinkable water.

For the first several days, emergency services were delayed or so

disorganized that they provided little assistance. Because the storm had

been forecasted well in advance, the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) and the Bush administration shouldered much of the

blame for the failed preparations and response to the storm. New Orleans

residents had long demanded more adequate protection against a

hurricane, and the poorest neighborhoods were incredibly vulnerable to

flooding. Americans watched in disbelief as news crews showed images of

hundreds of stranded citizens. They were especially enraged to see

opportunistic criminals who thwarted rescue efforts while other citizens

who tried to provide aid were turned back by FEMA officials. Because the

majority of those left in New Orleans were poor African Americans,

Katrina revealed the continued inequalities of race and class, as well as the

cavalier attitude of many in the federal government who belatedly

responded.

Similar indifference was displayed by the Bush administration regarding

the postcolonial power struggles in Africa. The Republic of the Sudan was

host to political unrest, which had combined with ethnic and religious

strife for much of the late twentieth century. The isolated region of Darfur

in western Sudan suffered from underdevelopment. In addition, a series of

wars between area nations and the historic conflict between Muslim and other residents of Darfur

brought added suffering to the people of this region. In addition, Sudanese oil profits were funneled to

local militias that sought to control the region. The resulting violence led to hundreds of thousands of

deaths while 2 to 3 million residents of Darfur became refugees.

Absent a clear strategic or economic interest in the conflict, the United States and the United Nations

avoided involvement beyond limited humanitarian aid. Private citizens in America and abroad sought

to make up the difference with personal contributions. More importantly, the African Union sent

thousands of peacekeepers into the region. The conflict continues to this day. Despite the fact that

many rebel groups had vowed to continue fighting, many hoped that a cease-fire signed in 2010 would

somehow lead to a restoration of peace in Darfur as well as the rest of the Republic of the Sudan. Many

critics of the United States and the West cite Darfur as another example of the failure of the leaders of

the developed world to secure the goodwill and support of the Muslim world.

Despite these missed opportunities to promote global stability, nearly all Muslims remain strongly

opposed to Al Qaeda and other extremists. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission revealed that the Clinton

and Bush administrations had failed to respond to credible reports that a terrorist attack was being

planned. It also demonstrated that there was not a meaningful connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Other investigations had concluded that there were neither WMDs in Iraq nor credible evidence that

Hussein was attempting to obtain such weapons. News of the absence of WMDs surfaced by 2006 just

as news that 3,000 US soldiers had died in Iraq. The following year, a controversial surge of US forces

increased the number of troops in Iraq from 130,000 back to 160,000 troops.

The surge was heavily criticized by the political left, but appeared to have been successful in reducing

violent attacks in Iraq. However, reports of the torture and even rape and murder of Iraqi civilians also

surfaced in Bush’s second term. In addition, many Americans joined those around the world who

protested the US military’s indefinite detainment of suspected terrorists without trial in a military

prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Evidence that some of these prisoners were also tortured combined

with the unilateral nature of the war to reduce American standing in the world. Critics even claimed

that America’s wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq, were winning converts to Al Qaeda and other terrorist

organizations. Others feared that the deployments reduced the ability of US forces to respond to other

global threats. These critics were concerned by the nonresponse of the US military after the former

Soviet state of Russia invaded another former Soviet state in the summer of 2008.

R E V I E W A N D C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

1. Explain how George W. Bush was able to come from behind in the polls and win the 2000

presidential election. Describe the controversy regarding disputed votes in Florida and

explain how Bush could win the election despite polling fewer votes than his opponent.

Offer your own analysis about whether the United States should continue to utilize the

electoral college system.

2. Summarize the events of September 11 and describe the way that this terrorist attack

affected the nation. Describe the immediate reaction of the nation as well as the federal

government’s attempts to prevent future terrorist attacks.

3. Given Osama bin Laden’s opposition to Saddam Hussein and other leaders of Iraq, why

then did the United States decide to use its military to topple Hussein’s government after

the September 11 attacks? Describe the reasons cited in favor of and against the invasion

of Iraq. Explain the ways that the Bush administration led the nation to war.

4. Summarize the election of 2004. How did the Bush administration manage to defeat the

candidacy of John Kerry despite its own unpopularity with many voters?

5. Analyze the effectiveness of Bush’s second term in office, both at home and abroad. Be

sure to discuss the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as domestic issues such as taxes,

the budget, and the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

14.3 Diversity in the New America

L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S

1. Explain what multiculturalism is and why so many Americans had differing views on the

benefits of celebrating America’s cultural diversity.

2. Summarize the history of controversial state laws in Arizona and California regarding

immigration. Analyze the arguments for and against these bills using examples from

history.

3. Explain the goals of Third-Wave Feminism and Critical Race Theory. Using specific

examples, analyze the legal cases regarding affirmative action and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in

comparison to cases regarding civil rights in previous generations.

Multiculturalism

As toleration for diversity increased among Americans, many in the United States also became

increasingly sensitive to labels used to describe various minority groups. This proved easier in theory

than practice given the lack of unanimity among people of various Asian, Middle Eastern, African,

South American, and Caribbean peoples. “Asian American” remained a popular moniker, but it was

criticized for minimizing the rich diversity of the world’s largest continent. African visitors to the

United States often wondered why they were called “African Americans,” especially in cities like New

York where hundreds of thousands of recent immigrants from various African nations resided. In fact,

more people of African descent have arrived in America in recent decades than during the centuries of

forced immigration and slavery.

New citizens from Asia and Africa usually identify themselves by their country of origin rather than

their continent of origin. They view themselves as Laotian, Cambodian, Kenyan, or Ethiopian. Some

recent immigrants from Mexico prefer the term “Mexicano” or “Chicano” while those of Mexican

ancestry who were born in the United States often favor “Mexican American,” “Hispanic,” or simply

“American.” The new arrivals from the Caribbean and Central and South America likewise identified

themselves as Cubans, Dominicans, Brazilians, or other terms depicting nationality. However, they

often found themselves grouped along with Mexican Americans. By the 1980s, the term “Latino”

gained currency as an all-inclusive label for all people from Spanish-speaking countries and cultures.

Older terms such as Hispanic were regarded as offensive to some, largely because of the term’s implicit

reference to European imperialists from Spain who had enslaved the Indian, African, and Mestizo

ancestors of most “Hispanic” people. However, the term continues to be used to refer to people from

Spanish-speaking nations and is often interchanged with Latino/Latina and other terms.

Some Americans resent the increased sensitivity regarding terms of identity, while many others simply

want to be told what term they should use. Most nonwhite, native-born citizens appreciate the new

sensitivity regarding their ethnicity but tire of being asked about their origins or even “welcomed” to

their own country by strangers. Schools, government organizations, and corporations increasingly

required “diversity training” intended to help educate and sensitize their members regarding the

values and practices surrounding multiculturalism. Because multiculturalism was difficult to

define, some criticized these efforts as a way of stereotyping minorities or minimizing the ideas and

contributions of nonminorities. Others believe multiculturalism unintentionally perpetuates

stereotypical understandings of various groups. As a result, multiculturalism has resulted in greater

understanding and appreciation for diversity even as perceptions of multiculturalism have fueled

backlash.

On many occasions, backlash against multiculturalism was expressed in ways that clearly

demonstrated the pervasiveness of racism in the twenty-first century. At other times, those who

expressed anxiety regarding multiculturalism were expressing concerns about changing modes of

popular cultural expression. Even more than the previous two generations, many American youths

began to appropriate “black” cultural modes of expression. In contrast to suburban environs or the

unapologetically old-fashioned rhythms of rural America, many youths came to glorify what they

perceived to be a more intense mode of expression through rap music and hip-hop culture. Others

were simply attracted to the hypermasculine posturing of gangsta rap. It also didn’t hurt that the

music, fashion, and slang they adopted drove their parents crazy.

In many ways, these parents and their children were simply repeating cultural history. Norman

Mailer’s 1957 White Negro described the hipster of the 1950s complete with baggy clothes and a

suspicion that he was the only authentic article in a world of poseurs. “You can’t interview a hipster

because his main goal is to keep out of a society [he believes] is trying to make everyone over in its own

image,” Mailer explained. At the same time Mailer made it clear where the substance of the white

hipster came from. “In this wedding of the white and black,” Mailer declared, “it was the Negro who

brought the cultural dowry.” Some modern critics of gangsta rap would argue that most of this dowry

had been spent by the turn of the twenty-first century. While many rap traditions survived, some of

the most popular artists appealed more to white fantasies and misogyny than authentic black

experience and cultural traditions.

Immigration and Latino Rights

Statistics regarding immigrant poverty and education were cited by those on both sides of the

immigration debate. By the 1990s, 50 percent of Latino students enrolled in the major cities of

California did not graduate high school. Whites perceived these statistics as evidence of a growing and

potentially dangerous underclass. Latinos attributed the failure rate to a combination of economic and

social issues that the state refused to address. Social conservatives in California united behind a 1994

ballot initiative known as Proposition 187. If passed, the proposal would bar noncitizens and

undocumented aliens from government-funded services such as public schools and health clinics.

Although the law’s passage would only exacerbate the problems facing Latino children of

undocumented parents, the majority of white voters rallied behind the measure, which became known

as the “Save Our State” initiative. In fact, white support for Proposition 187 was so strong that an

Figure 14.13

Opponents of Proposition

187 march in Fresno,

California.

unpopular Republican governor projected to lose his 1994 reelection bid in a landslide ended up

defeating his Democratic opponent because of his outspoken support for Proposition 187.

Minority groups and liberals organized in a failed attempt to defeat the

measure, arguing that Proposition 187 was motivated by racism and would

not address concerns about illegal immigration. Activists also warned that

the law would create a permanent underclass of Californians and was

callous toward undocumented children who could not attend school or

receive life-saving medical care. Federal courts quickly determined that

many provisions in the new law could not be enforced because they

conflicted with federal laws regarding immigration. Although the law was

deemed unenforceable, the debate surrounding the measure polarized

California politics along ethnic and party divisions. Two-thirds of

Democrats opposed Proposition 187, while four out of five Republicans

supported it. Nearly 80 percent of Latino voters opposed the law, while

black voters split evenly and a majority of whites voted in favor of the

measure. The law also spurred a renaissance of political activism among Latino voters throughout

California and beyond.

The debate and subsequent legal action surrounding Proposition 187 led to a heated political debate

about federal and state authority regarding immigration. In 2010, the Republican-dominated state

legislature of Arizona approved a controversial measure that required state law enforcement officials

to request documentation verifying the citizenship of anyone they had reason to suspect might be an

illegal alien. All noncitizens were required to maintain documentation of their status, and any person

caught without this documentation was subject to immediate deportation.

The strictest immigration law ever passed, Arizona Senate Bill 1070 soon became a subject of

nationwide controversy. Although polls indicated wide support throughout the country, many believed

that the law’s provisions were inspired by xenophobia and encouraged if not required racial profiling

by police. As of 2011, many federal officials and even the president of the United States have expressed

concerns about the constitutionality of the Arizona law. As a result, some politicians have called for the

enactment of a Constitutional amendment that would deny citizenship to children born in America

whose parents were not citizens—a provision that has grown in popularity following its proposal in

2005 but conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment. Others believe the solution is stronger measures

against the entry of undocumented aliens. Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 with

bipartisan support. This law authorized the construction of up to 700 miles of fences and other

barriers across the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Areas without a fence were to be monitored by

sensors and cameras.

In response to the Fence Act, thousands of students engaged in protests against the wall’s

construction. The protests became defining features of colleges along the US border from the

University of Texas at Brownsville to the University of Texas at El Paso, all the way to Arizona Western

College, community colleges in San Diego, and major research institutions such as UCLA and San

Diego State University. These students have joined millions of Americans of diverse backgrounds who

believe that the wall is an ineffective method of curbing the entry of illegal drugs and immigrants into

the county. They also believe that the construction of the wall sends a xenophobic message that

violates the history and finest traditions of the American people. Many of these students have studied

and adopted the tactics of the civil rights movement to express their views, arguing that the wall is a

blight on border communities and a symbol of the second-class citizenship Latinos still hold in the

United States.

Local business interests and political leaders joined the students, arguing that the wall and other

measures ignore the reality of life along the border, where companies depend on the daily migration of

workers to and from their homes in Mexico. Members of the Sierra Club and other environmentalists

have also joined the protest, pointing out that many of the barriers violate federal statutes regarding

the access to water for migrating animals. Humanitarian groups have expressed even greater outrage

at the apathy expressed toward migrating humans. They believe that the fences have led many families

to hire criminals to smuggle them into the United States, while others have been forced to take a much

riskier path through deserts. As a result, hundreds of bodies have been discovered recently in the

Sonoran Desert and other remote areas where there is no wall.

Immigration continues to be a controversial issue that reflects the persistence of cultural and ethnic

tensions. Some believe that efforts to build an impassable border between the United States and

Mexico is not only xenophobic but also less cost-effective than investing in overseas businesses that

would create more jobs in Mexico and thereby removing the leading cause of illegal immigration.

Given the recent loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States, such a measure is likely to encounter

spirited opposition. One of the only proposed changes to America’s immigration policies that has

enjoyed bipartisan support was a 2002 law regarding citizenship for soldiers. Republican President

George W. Bush approved the measure that simplified and accelerated the process for citizenship for

permanent residents (holders of Green Cards) who serve in the US military. Approximately 70,000

soldiers utilized these provisions to become citizens in the decade that followed. As of late 2011,

journalists have estimated that 25,000 legal immigrants from all over the globe were serving in the US

military and awaiting citizenship.

Gender Equality and Third-Wave Feminism

One of the most important changes in the last few decades has been the rapid increase in the number

of women holding political office. The percentage of women in Congress hovered around 2 to 3 percent

from the 1940s to the 1970s. This percentage jumped from 5 percent in 1990 to almost 15 percent by

the year 2000, reaching 17 percent after the 2010 elections (a slight decline from the record number of

ninety-five representatives and seventeen senators who composed the 111th Congress of 2008–2010).

While the number and percentage of women in politics increased rapidly in the past thirty years, it is

important to note that the percentage of women in the US legislature remains far below that of most

developed nations. As of 2011, the congresses and parliaments of over seventy nations had a higher

percentage of female membership than the United States. The global success of women as political

leaders in nations as diverse as Norway, Cuba, Rwanda, Argentina, and Mozambique demonstrates the

existence and spread of feminism beyond Britain and the United States. In each of the nations listed,

women represent around 40 percent of elected representatives in their nation’s parliament.

Figure 14.14

This chart compares the number and percentages of women in various national legislative bodies around

the globe.

Many scholars believe that feminism, at least feminism as a popular movement, receded slightly after

the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many attribute the decline to the conservative political environment of

1980s America. However, the movement flourished internationally during the 1980s in Africa, Asia,

South America, the Caribbean, and even some parts of the Middle East. America’s role in spreading

ideas such as women’s suffrage is striking in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. As of 2011, a much

higher percentage of women serve in parliament in these nations than within the United States.

Elsewhere, women won the right to vote independent of American influence and have been more

progressive in terms of gender equality for many years. The location of the four United Nations

Women’s Conferences, which have been held in Mexico City, Copenhagen, Nairobi, and Beijing,

demonstrate the global nature of the feminist movement of which the United States is a participant

rather than a leader. Hillary Clinton was one of the few mainstream American political leaders to even

acknowledge the existence of the global feminist movement. As first lady, Clinton attended the 1995

UN Women’s Conference in Beijing. Clinton was only the second first lady to attend any UN

conference on the status of women, the first being Eleanor Roosevelt who had been appointed to a

leadership position within the UN six decades prior.

Some distinguish feminists of the 1990s and early 2000s as belonging to a third wave. Whereas the

first wave sought the right to vote and the second sought legal and economic equality, the advocates of

Third-Wave Feminism define their movement as an effort to permit women to define for

themselves what gender justice and feminism means. Born from a recognition that leading feminist

organizations often failed to be truly inclusive in terms of race, ethnicity, and social class, the third

wave also rejects notions of a single feminist ideal. For example, many feminists of the 1970s and

1980s advanced the notion of a middle-class and presumably white career woman competing in male-

dominated fields as the ideal model of women’s liberation. Third-Wave Feminists hope to celebrate all

women who use their own agency to determine and define what liberation means for themselves. As a

result, Third-Wave Feminism is a difficult concept to define. Some feminists believe that the

usefulness of labeling “waves” of feminism has passed. For example, bell hooks who is among the

leading feminists of the modern era, writes about the difficulty and even the inherent contradiction of

trying to define something as ubiquitous as feminism.

In recent years, feminist scholars have joined others, such as the late Derrick Bell, who have pioneered

a body of scholarship known as Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT studies the ways that racism and

sexism helped to create and reinforce a power structure that historically privileged white males over

other Americans. In the past two decades, critical race theorists have used history and other fields to

demonstrate how negative images rooted in slave experience have persisted. CRT is a diverse field of

study that defies simple definitions or a single representative example. At the same time, the strength

of scholars such as Derrick Bell and Darlene Clark Hine is the clarity of the examples they use. Two

examples relating to race and gender are instructive: the way CRT scholars demonstrate how slave

owners created the “jezebel” and “mammy” stereotypes.

The “jezebel” was a racist image that devalued black womanhood by equating a particular slave with a

more primal creature who was unable to control her sexual urges. In so doing, white men who owned

slaves transferred the blame for the rapes they committed on the “insatiable lust” of slave women who

tempted the otherwise virtuous slave owner. The “mammy” was on the reverse end of the spectrum, a

nonsexual, and therefore unthreatening and undesirable, drudge who cheerfully emancipated white

women from their daily toil. Critical race theorists explain that these stereotypes led to the elevation of

white women because they were contrasted against the negative images of the jezebel and the mammy.

As a result, the denigration of black women created the image of white women as both virtuous and

desirable. At the same time, these stereotypes allowed elite white men to define a very limited sphere

of acceptable female behavior for the idealized woman—a pedestal that elevated and trapped a woman

at the same time.

In this and many other ways, recent CRT scholars have shown how racism helped to pit black and

white women against one another within a paternalistic society. These scholars argue that aspects of

these stereotypes persisted beyond the end of chattel slavery in ways that continued to devalue black

womanhood while defining white womanhood in elevated but restricted ways. According to this line of

reasoning, issues of race, ethnicity, class, and gender came together in ways that permitted elite white

males to define womanhood in racial and gendered terms. As a result, those who identify themselves

as Third-Wave Feminists believe that celebrating diversity and encouraging women to define

womanhood for themselves is a necessary corrective. In the end, attempting to precisely define Third-

Wave Feminism may be an impossible task. Like those who came before them, Third-Wave Feminists

are a diverse group of women who seek equality and justice while confidently living life on their own

terms.

Figure 14.15

This chart demonstrates

the recent increase in the

total number of inmates

in prisons, jails, and

juvenile facilities in the

United States between

1920 and 2006.

Race, Equality, and Law

Some scholars began to refer to America as a “postracial” society at the turn of the twenty-first

century. Violent protests that erupted in Los Angeles following the acquittal of police who were

videotaped beating the motionless Rodney King in the summer of 1992 demonstrated otherwise. For

three days, police and firefighters battled rioters and arsonists. The riots left fifty people dead and

caused $1 billion in damages. Three years later, the arrest and subsequent acquittal of the NFL’s O. J.

Simpson demonstrated that white and black Americans still perceived events differently.

As these incidents demonstrate, perceptions regarding the fairness of the criminal justice system often

differed among white and black Americans. Angela Davis is a scholar, Black Panther, and former

prisoner who was later acquitted of her alleged crime. Davis spent most of her life as an activist against

what she believes are the injustices of the criminal justice system. Davis argues that the term prison-

industrial complex is a more accurate term for America’s law enforcement system. She and others

cite a host of studies that use statistics to demonstrate that courts are more prone to dismiss charges

against whites and impose stiffer penalties on nonwhites.

Federal statistics show the prison population expanded from 200,000

inmates in 1970 to 2.2 million four decades later. Davis believes that race

and poverty continue to play significant factors in this growth and rejects

the assumption that the rapid growth of the prison population is simply

the result of better law enforcement. “Most people commit crimes,” Davis

believes, “some people are under much greater surveillance.” Davis and

others also believe that the growth of the prison system reflects a society

that sees incarceration as a simple and immediate way to deal with

underlying social problems such as poverty and drug addiction. She and

other activists compare the lobbying power of corporations and contractors

in the prison industry to the military-industrial complex President

Eisenhower described. They argue that just as the armament industry led

to the expansion of military spending, the power of a multibillion-dollar

law-enforcement industry has fueled the increase in the prison population.

Recent statistics show that one in four black men in their twenties is

awaiting trial, in jail, or in some type of parole system. At the same time, one-third of college-aged

African Americans have also attended college—a percentage near the US average. Recent policies

designed to encourage black enrollment have been heavily scrutinized. For example, a conservative

political group challenged the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions process that ranked

candidates by a point system because that system included points for minority candidates. The point

system still ensured that a minority candidate had impeccable credentials but would place a minority

candidate ahead of a “white” candidate with equal scores.

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) ruled that colleges could still seek to attract minority applicants and

consider race when making admission decisions. However, the Supreme Court argued that Michigan’s

point system was too rigid and therefore discriminated against white students. In a similar case that

same year involving the University of Michigan Law School, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the

legality of an admissions process that considered race as a factor but did not award points or use a

quota. The use of quotas had been disallowed by the 1978 Bakke decision, while the more recent Gratz

case prohibited precise mathematical formulas that awarded points for being a member of a minority.

The 5–4 split decision of the justices, along with the apparent mixed message permitting schools to

use race as a factor in order to increase the diversity of their student body while limiting the use of

clear and definable methods of doing so, confused many. The majority decision in the law school case,

written by Sandra Day O’Connor, provided context but little specific guidance. O’Connor

acknowledged that the present state of race relations was such that affirmative action was still needed

to remedy past injustices while looking forward to the day a completely color-blind society might live

by completely color-blind policies.

Some Americans believed that day had already come and gone, leaving the nation with policies that

discriminated against whites. Two Supreme Court cases decided in June 2007 greatly limited the

options for schools seeking racial diversity within cities whose neighborhoods remained racially

segregated. In Seattle, a new system of determining school assignments allowed parents to choose any

school in the city. When there were more requests than could be accommodated, preference was given

to requests that helped encourage racial balance. A similar system operated in Louisville, with the

addition of a few measurable standards regarding racial balance. No Louisville school could have fewer

than 15 percent or greater than 50 percent black student populations. In Parents Involved in

Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1 (2007) and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of

Education (2007) the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could consider race when making

assignments, but that both systems were too rigid. Both cases resulted in split decisions, with four of

the nine Justices issuing dissenting opinions. These opinions raised the question of how any school

district might create racially diverse schools in America’s cities if even the moderate and flexible plans

of the Louisville and Seattle public schools were unconstitutional.

The question of governmental power and its limits was also the central issue regarding lawsuits that

sought to challenge the proliferation of casinos on Native American reservations. In 1978, the

Seminole tribe of Florida opened a bingo parlor on their land near Miami. State officials protested,

citing Florida’s antigambling laws. The Seminoles filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s authority to

enforce its prohibition against gambling on tribal land. Federal courts ruled in favor of the Seminoles,

arguing that tribal sovereignty prohibited enforcement of state antigambling laws.

In response to the ruling, tribes throughout the nation began developing casinos on their reservations.

Within a decade, gambling revenues nationwide exceeded several billion dollars. The proceeds were

distributed to individual members as well as tribal governments. For many tribes, these nontaxed

revenues have been critical to the construction of schools and small colleges. However, the majority of

reservations are too isolated from urban populations to raise significant revenue. In some cases,

casinos have led to increased poverty in the isolated communities they serve. In addition, many states

have modified their laws to allow the operation of private and state-operated casinos. While these

casinos generate millions in revenue for the states, these state-regulated casinos are usually located

closer to major cities than most Indian reservations. As a result, some tribes that borrowed money or

entered into delayed revenue-sharing agreements with casino operators face a severe budget crisis.

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered (GLBT) Rights

As a candidate, Bill Clinton pledged to end the ban on homosexual service in the United States Armed

Forces. Clinton’s support of what many believed was an important civil rights initiative won him many

supporters on the left during the Democratic primaries. In January of 1993, President Clinton

announced that he was putting together a plan that would end all discrimination based on sexual

orientation. The announcement drew a firestorm of opposition both within and outside of the military.

Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell criticized the new president’s plan. In

response, Clinton agreed to a compromise measure, a relatively cumbersome standard that was soon

labeled Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). The new policy still banned homosexuals from joining the

military, at least officially, but also banned military officials from requesting any disclosures regarding

a member’s sexual orientation. It also prevented service members from voluntarily disclosing such

information. In effect, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell permitted homosexuals to join the military so long as they

remained “in the closet.”

Many gay rights activists were disappointed that the president had compromised his original position.

Critics pointed out that the new policy required soldiers to lie about their identity in ways that

Figure 14.16

A 2001 US Army training

aid describing the kinds

of information that

would be considered as

credible evidence that a

soldier was homosexual.

stigmatized homosexuality. Others recognized that the president’s position was still well ahead of

public opinion and cost him political support among conservatives and some moderates. Millions

within the religious right were appalled by Clinton’s new policy. The president’s relationship with

many conservative military leaders was also strained and would only gradually recover during the final

years of his second term. The next seven years of Clinton’s presidency demonstrated ideological

inconsistencies regarding gay rights that likely reflected political calculations of Clinton’s advisors

rather than the president’s personal views. In 1996, Clinton supported the Defense of Marriage Act

that legally defined marriage as a union between a woman and a man. Two years later, and well past

the final election of his political career, Clinton signed an executive order that outlawed discrimination

against any federal civilian employee because of their sexual orientation.

In 2003, the US Supreme Court invalidated a Texas law that made same-

sex intercourse a crime. Also in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court

ruled that same-sex couples were legally entitled to the same privileges and

obligations enjoyed by opposite-sex couples who desired marriage.

Officials and clergy in cities with large gay populations, such as San

Francisco, also began performing marriages. However, the California

Supreme Court quickly ruled that these unions had no legal basis. In 2008,

the California Supreme Court reversed course, overturning a statewide ban

on gay marriage. Despite conservative support, attempts to pass a

Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage failed on numerous

occasions. However, thirty states have adopted similar prohibitions against

gay marriage within their state constitutions.

Because most of these states already prohibited same-sex marriage, few of

these measures have had any legal impact upon state law. As a result,

many political observers believe that these laws and amendments

prohibiting gay marriage were placed on the ballot by conservative

politicians as a way to rally their supporters and assure a large

conservative turnout at the polls. Others point out that the adoption of a

state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage reduces the

likelihood that a state would revise existing prohibitions. In addition, these provisions encourage the

denial of the health care coverage, survivor benefits, and other protections enjoyed by heterosexual

couples. As of 2011, only seven states and the District of Columbia had issued marriage licenses to

same-sex couples. A few other states recognize the legality of same-sex marriages performed in other

states. Although the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act sought to “protect” states from being compelled to

recognize the legality of same-sex unions performed in other states, the fact that states must recognize

the legality of heterosexual marriages performed in the United States has led many to question the

Constitutionality of the 1996 law.

Candidate Barrack Obama promised to repeal DADT during his 2008 campaign. However, after

becoming the president and commander-in-chief, he deferred to military officials, most of whom were

opposed or divided on the measure. Gay rights activists, veterans, active soldiers, and progressive

military leaders continued to press for the repeal of DADT, even as the president remained silent on

the issue. Polls indicated opposition to the repeal of DADT until 2011, when many within the Joint

Chiefs of Staff expressed their belief that repeal would not compromise the effectiveness of the US

military. In July of 2011, a federal court declared that the provisions of DADT were no longer

enforceable. The decision legally opened military service to all Americans regardless of their gender

orientation. The military has since revised its policies and now trains personnel that discrimination

against a military member because of his or her gender orientation is impermissible.

R E V I E W A N D C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

1. What is multiculturalism, and why would its tenets arouse such strong opposition amongst

social conservatives?

2. Describe the controversy regarding the issue of immigration along America’s southern

border during the past two decades. Explain the history of California’s Proposition 187 and

Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Describe the way that college students throughout the

Borderlands sought to impact the debate regarding immigration.

3. What is Third Wave Feminism and Critical Race Theory? Provide examples of how these

ideas might impact a current debate regarding race and gender equality in the United

States.

4. Discuss legal cases such as Gratz v. Bollinger that have dealt with race and affirmative

action. Describe various perspectives regarding these cases and affirmative action.

5. President Clinton revised the ban against homosexuals in the military with a policy known

as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Explain the history of this policy and discuss the history of gay

rights in the military from World War II to the present.

14.4 Continuity and Change: The United States and the

Transition from Bush to Obama

L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S

1. Explain the ways that the political system continues to marginalize the concept of “one

person, one vote.” Analyze the obstacles to creating a more democratic electoral process.

2. Summarize the causes and consequences of the economic crisis that arose in 2007–2008.

Explain how the crisis affected the 2008 election.

3. Describe the polarization of America’s political climate and the cultural war that has

emphasized this division. Analyze the modern political climate using examples throughout

history.

Pervasiveness of Inequality

A century and a half after the end of slavery, issues of race and class continued to divide America. In

the wake of white flight, the proliferation of private schools, and court decisions that limited busing as

a method of achieving racial diversity, America’s urban schools were more segregated in the twenty-

first century than prior to the 1954 Brown v. Board decision. In 1950, the richest 1 percent of

Americans controlled 20 percent of the nation’s wealth, and top executives usually made between ten

and twenty times the average wage of entry-level employees. Five decades later, CEO pay often

exceeded 250 times the annual wages of workers, while the wealthiest 1 percent controlled a third to

half of the nation’s wealth. Poverty rates increased during the same time period, while the working

class had increased their wages only when measured against the lower standard of living of much

earlier decades. The rich had grown much richer, the poor were more prevalent, and those in between

clung to middle-class status by becoming dual-wage households.

Lack of economic equality was reflected in the political system in ways much more difficult to

document than the overt disenfranchisement that had given rise to Freedom Schools and Fannie Lou

Hamer. Given the importance of securing political donations in modern elections, the poor and

middle-class found their interests circumscribed by those who could provide the financial resources a

candidate depended upon to be reelected. For several decades, reformers attempted to place limits on

the amounts and types of political donations campaigns could accept. These reformers hoped these

prohibitions would force political leaders to value the views of voters over interest groups.

Given the decline of labor unions, which had traditionally made large donations to the Democratic

Party, and the success of Republicans in soliciting sizable political donations from corporations,

leading Democrats made dozens of attempts to place stricter limits on political donations throughout

the 1980s and 1990s. Arguing that these limits were politically motivated and a violation of free

speech, Republicans mobilized each time to defeat these bills. Several bipartisan attempts to regulate

campaign finance were also defeated, such as a 1997 bill sponsored by Arizona Republican John

McCain and Wisconsin Democrat Russell Feingold.

These measures sought to rein in “soft money,” a term for donations that are given to a political

party or cause rather than directly to an individual politician’s campaign. Soft money usually takes the

form of union or corporate donations and is generally exempt from limits (presently around $2,500

per candidate per election) that apply to contributions that are made directly to a specific candidate.

The 1997 McCain-Feingold bill targeted “soft money” but was defeated by a Republican filibuster. The

willingness of Senator McCain to confront the leaders of his own party earned him a reputation as a

“maverick.”

McCain and Feingold succeeded in passing a campaign finance reform bill in 2002, which placed

many limits on soft money. However, many of these provisions were easily circumvented by other

methods of political fundraising. In response to the past four decades of campaign-finance reforms,

thousands of political organizations were created as part of an effort to further a political agenda

without being subject to the rules of the Federal Election Commission. The most common method of

evading regulations is for an organization to finance advertisements that sound very similar to a

candidate’s message but do not explicitly endorse that candidate. For example, an advertisement

might suggest that candidate A has a reputation for integrity while candidate B has a criminal record.

Other advertisements might connect specific issues or policies with a particular candidate, as long as it

does not explicitly counsel its audience to vote for that candidate.

Many restrictions against these kinds of advertisements were considered in each session of Congress at

the turn of the twenty-first century. Each restriction weighed the desire to limit corruption and

unsavory methods of financing campaigns against concerns regarding the protection of free speech.

Many Americans recognized that limits on individual campaign contributions were meaningless if

unlimited donations might be made to anonymous organizations covertly working to aid a particular

campaign. President Barack Obama backed an effort in 2010 that would have required disclosure

statements for these kinds of advertisements. It also prohibited foreign entities and recipients of

government contracts from making political contributions. Critics of the bill suggested it was

politically motivated and violated standards of free speech. Although the bill would have likely passed

given its support by the Democratic majority in Congress, the bill was defeated when every Republican

senator joined efforts to prevent the measure from reaching the floor for a vote. Later that same year,

the Supreme Court reversed prohibitions that had prevented corporations from using unlimited

funding to produce and distribute political messages about candidates.

The Economy

The stock market had rapidly fluctuated during the last three decades, producing record bull and bear

markets alike, but generally rising higher at a rate that seemed unnatural to some economists. The

value of homes in many urban markets had risen by 10 to 20 percent each year, which caused a boom

in real-estate speculation. As had occurred during the 1920s, few Americans were saving money, while

others used leverage in dangerous ways. Some families took out multiple mortgages, leveraging their

homes to purchase stock on margin or invest in more real estate. Unlike the 1920s, however,

consumers were also using credit cards to borrow for everyday purchases, while most college students

and their families financed a large portion of their educational expenses with federally backed loans.

Other modern financial products, such as second mortgages and home-equity loans, also increased the

risk of going into debt.

Perhaps the most remarkable new finance mechanism was the zero-equity home loan. These were

loans that did not require a down payment and were increasingly paired with adjustable-rate

mortgages (ARMs). These risky types of loans were marketed to those who had dreamed of purchasing

a home but had been turned away by traditional lenders. These individuals often did not have a very

sophisticated idea of finance and were happy to accept any home loan. They were especially happy to

find that they had been approved to buy a brand-new home with no money down. The terms of most

ARMs were seldom fully explained by salespeople who were paid on commission. Many of the

companies that offered these high-risk loans later sold these loans to other financial companies. The

banks that purchased these loans failed to investigate each individual loan or simply believed that any

investment backed by a mortgage was safe. Even if home owners defaulted, they reasoned, the bank

would get to keep the house, which would have likely increased in value. In some cases, loans were

designed to force home buyers to default after a certain number of years, thereby giving the banks

ownership of the real estate while keeping all of the payments the family had made up to that time.

It was a fail-proof system for the banks and mortgage companies so long as home prices continued to

increase. But in 2005, housing prices stagnated as fewer and fewer buyers entered the market, and by

2007, these prices began tumbling. A family who had purchased a $250,000 home with no money

down found they were $250,000 (or more) in debt for a house that was now valued at $150,000. Many

chose bankruptcy to this upside-down situation, which left the banks with homes that were worth

much less than the money they had originally loaned.

Other home owners tried to fulfill their obligations but found their zero-down adjustable-rate

mortgage contained some unpleasant surprises. Although they should have realized at the time, most

ARMs came with loan-repayment rates that jumped from a low introductory rate of 4 percent to 6 or

even 8 percent. For example, the interest alone on a monthly mortgage payment for a $250,000 home

would jump from $833 at 4 percent to $1,458 at 7 percent. Banks that had purchased these risky loans

had done so believing that if the family in question could no longer pay their mortgage, the bank would

at least be able to take possession of a house that was worth $250,000 or more. Instead, those that

defaulted were often abandoning both a bad loan and a home that was worth only a fraction of what

they owed.

In the past, home loans were made by local banks that faced the prospect of losing money or even

going out of business if they loaned money to families who could not pay. By the early twenty-first

century, home loans were made by a variety of financial institutions, but usually ended up in the hands

of only a few firms. The government was supposed to regulate the health of this system, but had

increasingly reduced the restrictions on lenders due to political pressure and the historic gains of the

stock market and real-estate prices.

Critics warned that the health of the nation’s economy was directly related to the stability of a handful

of banks and investment firms, but until 2007, those firms were making record profits, which masked

the symptoms of disaster from all but a few economists no one wanted to hear. Warnings that

America’s leading financial firms had unwittingly purchased billions of dollars in loans they knew very

little about were ignored, while government regulations were regarded as restraints that prevented the

economy from reaching its full potential. As a result, the news that venerable New York investment

bank Bear Stearns faced bankruptcy sent a wave of panic throughout the system in 2008.

All of a sudden, the United States awoke to the very disturbing reality that nearly all of its leading

banks were at risk of default, which threatened to cause the failure of the entire banking system.

Because these banks were insured by the federal government, the failure of one major institution like

Bank of America might cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and begin a tidal wave of other

banks to fail. The federal government stepped in and negotiated the takeover of Bear Sterns by

JPMorgan Chase. IndyMac Bank, the nation’s largest mortgage lender soon failed, which was followed

by federal bailouts of Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae—two government regulated corporations that

bought and sold mortgages from banks. Dozens of other leading institutions were nearing insolvency.

AIG was the largest insurance firm in the country and had invested heavily in mortgage-backed

investments. Facing the prospect that AIG would no longer be able to pay insurance claims, the

Federal Reserve took over AIG’s financial obligations by essentially purchasing the heavily indebted

company.

The panic spread from banking and insurance to the entire stock market, causing corporations in

industries that were already struggling such as auto manufacturing to collapse had it not been for

another massive federal bailout. Oil prices skyrocketed, while the latest round of World Trade

Organization talks in Doha, Qatar, failed to reduce international trade barriers. A host of states and

cities joined California and the former industrial cities of the Rust Belt in reporting that they were in

danger of defaulting on the loans they had made to bondholders. Private and public companies

responded by downsizing their workforce, while consumers who had money were understandably

reluctant to make large purchases, much less invest in stocks or bonds. The Dow Jones average fell

from above 14,000 to nearly 8,000 in just over a year. Retirees returned to the labor market, while

those who had planned to retire remained at work, resulting in fewer jobs for recent college graduates

who lacked the experience of older workers.

The media soon explained that a new and complicated type of investment was partially to blame and

had made a handful of speculators and industry insiders very rich. These investments were called

derivatives because they derived their value from the occurrence of a certain event—in this case, the

failure of thousands of mortgages. These new investments were beyond the understanding of many

experts who worked in the financial service industry and beyond the realm of overburdened

government officials whose powers to regulate the banking industry had been vastly reduced by both

Republicans and Democrats over the past three decades. These derivatives might have reduced risk

had they been purchased by the same banks that held the mortgages their value was derived from—a

sort of insurance policy that would compensate the banks if the loans they held ever defaulted.

Many derivatives were bought and sold by speculators betting on a market collapse. Given the

incredibly shaky foundation upon which the entire housing market had been constructed, it seemed to

many as if some in the investment industry had orchestrated the entire debacle. After all, the only way

that many of these loans would not default was if home values kept rising at historically

unprecedented rates while new home owners could keep paying mortgages that increased each year.

As the media and political leaders kept reporting about hedge fund millionaires and bank executives

with multimillion-dollar bonuses, the indignation of many Americans who feared the loss of their

homes and jobs mixed with fear to form a volatile mixture.

In late September and in the midst of election season, Bush officials in the Treasury Department

crafted legislation that would set aside $700 billion to “bail out the nation’s largest banks, investment

firms, and insurance companies.” Debate on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act revealed

both the panicked sense that failure to provide these funds would lead to a complete collapse of

America’s economic system and the fact that few in government really understood that system. Even

though many in Congress protested that the bailout bill had never been fully explained, each day the

financial headlines grew more dire, and the bill passed with begrudging but bipartisan support.

The bill provided little assistance for smaller banks, and hundreds of these institutions collapsed.

Those banks that had acted prudently survived but were not fully rewarded according to free-market

principles by the failure of their larger and more irresponsible competitors. Critics pointed out that

many aspects of the bailout were Socialistic—by loaning money to some of America’s largest

businesses, the government was effectively becoming the owner of these enterprises. Others claimed

these extreme measures were temporary and necessary to save the free market and prevent a second

Great Depression.

Libertarians believed that the businesses that had made poor investments should face the same fate of

millions of families that had taken on more debt than they could afford. As thousands faced

foreclosure and bankruptcy each day, it seemed unfair to most Americans that the largest banks were

getting federal bailouts because the entire economy was so dependent on their survival. Others turned

away from positive explanations and toward populist anger. All they knew was that handful of

speculators in the derivative market became rich overnight, while bank executives who were seemingly

driving the US financial system over a cliff they helped build were still making millions in bonuses.

Meanwhile, the stock market was collapsing each day, and millions of US families were one mortgage

payment away from homelessness.

2008 Election

If one could engineer a perfect economic storm, it would look much like the financial crisis of the late

Figure 14.17

Chicago politician and

Illinois Senator Barack

Obama became the 44th

President of the United

States following his 2008

victory over Arizona

2000s. The fact that it coincided with an election year increased the drama as both parties searched

for an understanding of what had happened and how to fix it. The Democratic primaries promised

drama regardless of the financial catastrophe, as New York Senator Hillary Clinton was poised to

become the first woman to be nominated by a major political party. The primary election was tightly

contested and each candidate sought the endorsement of political leaders. Ironically, the backing of

leading talk show host Oprah Winfrey may have been the most impartment endorsement of all. The

support and publicity of Oprah and other public figures helped a first-term senator from Illinois rise

from relative obscurity and secure the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama inspired many with

his charisma and message of “change” during the primary election. Obama became the first African

American to secure the nomination of a major political party. The nomination led many to wonder if

racial diversity had finally become a nonissue, or perhaps even a positive attribute in US politics.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration attempted to balance its attempts to promote Republican

candidates with managing the financial crisis. The Bush administration fully endorsed the $700 billion

bailout plan and supported additional measures to assist General Motors and Ford, along with AIG

and many other large corporations. Between each of these bailouts and the increasingly unpopular war

in Iraq, the failure to capture bin Laden, and growing sentiment that the Bush administration had

jeopardized the economic health of the nation through deficits and deregulation of the financial

industry, Bush’s approval ratings exceeded the lows of the Nixon administration. As a result,

Republican nominee for president John McCain distanced himself from the Bush administration along

with most of the rest of his party.

McCain was an Arizona senator with decades of experience, a fact that

contrasted sharply with the much younger Obama, who was still serving

his first term in the Senate. McCain was also a national hero who had

endured years of torture in a prisoner of war camp in Hanoi. At one point

during an early debate between a dozen candidates for the Republican

nomination, McCain stunned his opponents with his straightforward

response to a difficult question. Allegations that the United States had used

techniques such as water-boarding to interrogate prisoners at Guantanamo

Bay led to a heated discussion among the many candidates regarding the

morality of torture to secure information that might derail a terrorist

attack. After each candidate seemingly sought to outdo the other with

tough talk about what they would do to US enemies, McCain solemnly

replied that the United States could not stand for torture. The room went

Senator John McCain.silent.

As a soldier, McCain had endured daily beatings for his refusal to sign his

name to enemy propaganda that slandered the United States. As a

candidate, he made it clear that his nation must not be guilty of the same crimes. McCain’s principled

stand in opposition to the nationalistic posturing of his opponents reminded voters of his service to the

nation and his willingness to stand up to his own party in the past. McCain had been branded as a

“maverick” for his support of campaign finance reform and numerous other measures that were

strongly opposed by the Republican establishment. Given the sudden unpopularity of that

establishment in 2008, McCain’s unorthodox style resonated with voters and gave him an early lead in

the polls.

Both candidates ran on a platform of “change.” The Obama campaign used the word heavily along with

the elusive phrase “hope,” which appealed to many, given their frustrations with the Bush

administration and what appeared to be the potential collapse of the banking system. As a young

senator from Illinois, Obama had warned of the dangers of deregulation, which made him seem

prophetic, yet the candidate failed to communicate a specific plan for how he would turn the economy

around. The McCain campaign sought to emphasize its candidate’s reputation as a maverick to

distance the aging senator from the unpopular Bush administration he had usually supported. McCain

was most vulnerable on questions regarding the economy because he had supported most of the

deregulation efforts that led to the financial collapse. He had also received significant campaign

contributions from the director of a failed financial institution that was later arrested for trying to use

money to influence government regulators. McCain was cleared on ethics charges in relation to the

scandal but admitted that he had acted in a way that created the appearance of impropriety.

The 2008 election would demonstrate that race was still a major issue as Southern whites rallied

behind Republican nominee John McCain in far greater percentages than other Republicans or

conservatives had enjoyed. McCain’s outspoken vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin quickly

garnered the support of many evangelicals and the extreme right of the Republican Party, but these

were not voters that were likely to support Obama’s candidacy. Palin’s folksy but clichéd polemics and

unsubstantiated attacks on her opponent as a “pal” of terrorists soon galvanized the nation, with most

moderates turning away from the McCain camp. McCain sought to distance himself from the often

racist appeals of some of his supporters, but was perhaps too cautious in his efforts to do so while still

profiting from their race baiting. Sarah Palin displayed even less finesse as she combined the tactics of

Nixon’s early smear campaigns with the former president’s Southern Strategy, openly playing to white

racial fears by creating the image that nonwhite America was using federally subsidized programs such

as ACORN to capture the 2008 election.

The malice of the anti-Obama backlash the McCain-Palin campaign had encouraged soon expanded in

ways that harmed the Republican campaign. Despite McCain’s belated attempts to correct

misinformation about Obama’s religious beliefs and citizenship, the American people increasingly

viewed the Republican candidates as responsible for the negative turn in the 2008 election. Obama

responded to the backlash in such a mild manner that many minorities and liberal whites were

disappointed. However, the future president’s continued optimism and charisma stood in increasing

contrast to the attacks of his detractors. Late in the campaign, Obama delivered a well-received speech

in which he asked Americans to make sure that race baiting would fail. “We can let race divide us,”

Obama exulted, or “we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’” In the end, Americans expressed

unfavorable opinions about the techniques used by the McCain-Palin candidacy. The 2008 election

also resulted in the first African American president as Obama won with 53 percent of the popular

vote. The new president inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, record

deficits, and two wars that defied all military solutions and had sharply divided the American people.

Perhaps the president’s biggest obstacle, however, was finding a way to translate his lofty rhetoric and

the extremely high expectations he had created into support for policies in an extremely polarized

political climate.

Polarization and the Obama Presidency

Obama hoped to pass sweeping legislation that would finally reform the health care system—

legislation that had eluded his party for seven decades. But first, Obama focused on the continued

economic turmoil of Wall Street and Main Street. In February of 2008, Congress approved a second

major stimulus bill. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided nearly $800 billion to

ailing state and local governments for a host of projects aimed at providing jobs and bolstering the

nation’s infrastructure and educational systems. The bill remained controversial, although many

believe that it along with previous measures helped to prevent a more serious economic downturn.

Several leading Republicans were angered by continued federal spending that exacerbated the national

debt, which exceeded $10 trillion.

Obama’s health care plan was even more controversial. Many on the political right labeled the plan as

“Obamacare” and spread false information about some of the plan’s provisions. Some even distorted a

section providing coverage for counseling services for terminally ill patients as some sort of mandatory

Figure 14.18

The Tea Party emerged

as a grassroots

movement of the political

right. Its members

generally opposed

President Obama and

shared the perception

that liberals were

moving the nation

toward Socialism.

euthanization scheme for senior citizens. A new grassroots movement known as the Tea Party emerged

in opposition to the Obama health care bill. Although the health care plan passed the overwhelmingly

Democratic Congress, this occurred only after the president removed the most significant reforms,

such as a health insurance plan administered by the government. Obama also announced that all

combat troops would return from Iraq by 2010, which also concerned many on the right. The

president also announced a surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and a renewed effort to target Al

Qaeda and the Taliban.

On May 1, 2011, US special forces located and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, raising questions

about the extent of Al Qaeda support throughout the region. The news was greeted by most Americans

as a hopeful sign that terrorism would decline. Others were alarmed at the degree of revelry that some

Americans displayed, which seemed inappropriate to many and likely to embolden America’s enemies.

Estimates of the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to

lead many to question the way the war on terror was being waged. As of

2011, more than 6,000 US soldiers, 2,000 US contractors, and an

estimated 130,000 Iraqi and Afghan citizens had perished. The

Congressional Budget Office estimates the total cost of the wars at $2

trillion, while researchers at Brown University believe that the long-term

costs of caring for the hundreds of thousands of injured veterans will raise

the cost to $4 trillion. As Obama announced the return of all American

military personnel from Iraq by early 2012, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan

appeared to most Americans to be on a clear path toward democracy.

Meanwhile, the expenditures of the Department of Homeland Security

were continuing to rise, along with the growing threat of terrorism.

The news of bin Laden’s death immediately boosted President Obama’s

approval ratings, but the polarization that divided most Americans

remained. Emotional debates ensued that reflected a cultural war between

the right and its hypernationalistic rhetoric and the left with its call for

greater tolerance of diversity and support for President Obama. That

support for the president slowly declined after three years in office that

saw the president devote most of his efforts to winning over his conservative critics. Many on the left

felt betrayed by the failure of the president to follow through with promises to immediately repeal

DADT, close Guantanamo Bay, end the war in Iraq, and enact stricter regulations on banks and

Figure 14.19

Toward the end of 2011,

a grassroots movement

opposed to the unequal

distribution of wealth in

the United States began a

protest outside the New

York Stock Exchange.

The Occupy Wall Street

movement quickly

spread from New York to

local communities,

attracting a variety of

issues and supporters.

investment firms. In addition, the debates during the summer of 2011 regarding the debt ceiling reflect

anxieties about the health of the economy and the mounting federal debt that exceeded $14 trillion.

Economic concerns and an ongoing cultural war manifested themselves in numerous ways during the

president’s final years of his 2011–2013 term. The president’s support of a proposed Islamic

community in the same Manhattan neighborhood that had been home to the Twin Towers angered

many conservatives who began to fear that their president had betrayed the memory of September 11.

Others defended the president out of recognition that cherished values of freedom of expression and

religion were at stake but still expressed reservations about the legitimacy of the Islamic faith.

Demagogic talk show hosts continued to make hundreds of comparisons

between the Obama administration and the methods of Adolf Hitler and

Joseph Goebbels. Similar comparisons were made by some on the political

left toward conservatives. For most Americans, however, the examples

these demagogues used to support their analysis demonstrated both

insensitivity to the past and a suspension of critical thinking. Most

Americans were disturbed by the crude comparisons of American

politicians to these tyrants and the ignorance of world history

demonstrated by those who parroted these demagogic pundits. A few

within the Tea Party movement such as Sarah Palin revealed and then

celebrated a level of historical illiteracy that shocked many Americans and

became fodder for late-night talk show hosts.

As Palin demonstrated in 2011 with her assertion that Paul Revere was

trying to warn the British, presumably about their own troop movements,

interpretations of history continue to reveal a great deal about the present.

A June 2011 effort to commemorate the 1921 coal miner’s rebellion at Blair

Mountain, West Virginia, personifies many of the tensions between the

political left and the right and may be useful as a case study to explore the

causes and consequences of modern political alignment. Blair Mountain

was the site of one of the most violent labor conflicts in history. The land

was recently taken off the list of protected historical sights and was scheduled to be developed by

mining companies by using explosives to eliminate the top of the mountain. Many working-class West

Virginians sided with the coal companies, who presented the protesters as liberals and outsiders with

an agenda to eliminate coal jobs in the name of environmental protection. Given the massive layoffs of

the past few decades, the desire of many environmentalists to reduce coal consumption, and the way

many working-class residents of the state have been caricatured, the defensiveness of this perspective

carried its own logic.

At the same time, the loss of relatively high-paying jobs in coal mining and other industries and the

assault against the dignity of labor mirrored the cultural and economic issues surrounding the 1921

revolt. Much like their predecessors, modern coal companies were seeking ways of reducing labor

costs. Mountaintop removal mining is a technique that utilizes dynamite to blow away the tops of

mountains, known euphemistically as “overburden.” The technique eliminates the need for skilled

miners and engineers who are also more likely to be well-paid and unionized laborers. For this reason,

coal companies favor mountaintop removal and other forms of strip-mining because it reduces labor

costs.

As a result, many who depend on the coal industry for their livelihood were once again forced to

choose between coal operators who they hoped would employ them in the near-term and progressives

who viewed labor and capital as hostile toward one another. The progressive vision offers the

possibility of better working conditions and environmental protection but has often been expressed in

paternalistic ways that alienated many working-class Americans. Similar to those who sought to create

a partnership between the liberal reformers and the working class, modern progressives face the

challenge of creating partnerships across class lines in a cultural war that continues to polarize

America along a liberal-conservative divide.

R E V I E W A N D C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

1. Discuss the history of campaign finance reform over the past two decades. How have

changing laws regarding the ways political campaigns are financed affected the nation?

2. Summarize the economic history that led to the partial collapse of the real-estate market

and the bankruptcy of many leading financial firms. Discuss the response of the federal

government to the crisis, including the decision to loan billions of dollars to private

businesses that were on the verge of bankruptcy.

3. Summarize the Republican and Democratic primaries leading up to the 2008 election. How

was Barack Obama able to defeat John McCain? Discuss the impact of President Bush’s

approval ratings, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economy. Lastly, discuss the

ways that issues of race and gender affected the election.

4. Explain why many Americans believe that their nation has grown more polarized following

the 2008 election than at any time in recent history. Describe the current political climate

and the impact of political polarization upon the country.

14.5 Conclusion

The debates regarding environmental protection, globalization, and the distribution of wealth

continue to arouse impassioned debate. Issues that were heavily debated during the Clinton

administration, such as welfare, continue to revolve around the desire to prevent fraud and

dependency while ensuring adequate provisions for children. Both sides cite statistics showing that

poverty rates have changed little between 1996 and 2011 to support their own conclusions about the

1996 reforms. Liberals call for more aggressive funding in hopes additional programs might end the

cycle of poverty while conservatives claim that welfare itself helps to create a culture of dependency. A

similar debate surrounds the issues of taxation and the unequal distribution of wealth that spawned

the Occupy Wall Street Movement in the fall of 2011.

The post–Cold War period saw the greatest threats of history replayed throughout the globe.

International instability, tyrannical dictators, economic crises, and attempted genocide have continued

to shape US policies and identities at home and abroad. For the attentive student of history, the

challenges of the past surround the present. America’s record regarding international affairs revealed

the continuity of challenges and contradictions that had defined America’s emergence as a

superpower. Aware of the service and sacrifice of those who placed America in a position of global

leadership, the youths of this most recent generation continue to balance the priorities of defending

those in need with supporting a nation’s right to self-determination. For a new generation of

Americans, the lessons of generations past resonate in a renewed determination to create an America

that lives up to its own lofty ideals. Armed with an understanding of America’s past, there is reason to

believe that the next generation will arise and lead a nation whose greatest challenges and finest

moments are yet to be written.

14.6 Further Reading

Previous Chapter

Berman, William C. From the Center to the Edge: The Politics and Policies of the Clinton

Administration (2001).

Chafe, William. The Unfinished Journey: America Since World War II (2010).

Eckes, Alfred A. Jr. and Thomas W. Zeiler. Globalization in the American Century (2003).

Gidlow, Liette. Obama, Clinton, Palin: Making History in Elections 2008 (2011).

Johnson, Hayes. Best of Times: America in the Clinton Years (2004).

Katz, Michael B. The Price of Citizenship: Redefining America’s Welfare State (2001).

Lewis, Michael. The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (2010).

Reimers, David. Unwelcome Strangers: American Identity and the Turn Against Immigration

(1998).

Stiglitz, Joseph. Globalization and Its Discontents (2002).

Table of Contents