1. Yes, B.C. did push through NAFTA. Bill's messaging/governing strategy, that he was a "New Dem," was in response to the Dem Party's own Civil War/collapse, which happened in the late 60s & 70s in response to 2 things. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 & Voting Rights https://twitter.com/PaulHRosenberg/status/1335298865138810880

2. Act of 1965- themselves capstones of the civil rights movements and the straw that broke the back of the Democrat's "unholy alliance" between liberals in the north & conservative segregationists in the South. Their alliance, known as The New Deal Coalition, was an economic-

3.based alliance, and it allowed the Dem Party to dominate national politics in Congress literally for decades, but the pressure from northern liberals over segregation grew intense and efforts to pass civil rights laws in congress, as well as Brown v Board of Edu really started

4. erode the Dem Party's power and help Rs electorally, esp in prez elections. The late stage civil rights era, the 60s, by the time you get there, you've lost most white conservatives to the GOP in prez elections though downballot, realignment takes longer as people hold onto

5. incumbent Ds they were already voting for. Along with losing the South Ds had Vietnam to contend w, and ended up there in the 1st place bc at that time the most hawkish anti-communism people, the neocons, were DEMOCRATS! Yep! Bill Kristol's dad was a Dem and Kristol spend most

6 his childhood expecting to be one too, but then Vietnam happened, and the anti-war movement splintered the Dem Party (remember the 1968 Dem Convention in Chicago?!) & the neo-cons ended up leaving the Dem Party & realigning into the GOP. And folks, you just don't go through

7. shit like that w/o it costing you electorally. Esp bc in the 70s you have race riots in part from backlash to the terrible wave of assassinations seen in the 60s + the anti-war effort was radical as fuck, the Weather Underground & SDS were blowing shit up. All of that to make

8. it clear that as the GOP is currently all f'd up, back then the Dem Party was going through some stuff (BTW- up till now, the GOP has been able to go through their stuff w/o having a public spotlight trained on them painting them as extremists, their party as out of control,

9. something I hope to change soon). So Bill runs in the improbably 1992 cycle (running against an incumbent is always seen as a long shot) and his team design this "New Democrat" brand & they do it by basically co-opting the GOP's platform and positioning him as yes on dereg,

10. lowering taxes, and free trade. So in the 1990s it was not incorrect to say there was not a ton of difference the two party's economic platforms. In the 90s. Not so now- even on the economic front. That is bc the GOP's is the same, still. And the Ds are much more liberal and

much less supportive of deregulation. There are, in fact, imp differences so don't believe anyone telling you that there is not much difference between moderate Ds and Rs- its a gulf!

And, if you've been following my recent posts/work, you'll know that I trying to get Ds to stop running like Bill Clinton, bc its NOT 1992. And today, its the GOP that is a hot mess. So our frontliners should be on offense and should be putting their GOP opponents on defense for

their party's extremism and for its piss poor performance on managing the economy.