palewire

Bill Clinton has an editorial in the New York Times today. His subject: How great he was at being president. More specifically, what a huge success he thinks the changes to America’s welfare law he signed into law 10 years ago have been.

Without venturing any critique of his major claims — I’m sure plenty of other, more qualified bloggers will have a go at that one today — I’d like to point out one little twinkie that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Near the end of his piece, the former president digresses for a moment to explain how he thinks the bill made it through a Republican Congress and onto his desk.

Regarding the politics of welfare reform, there is a great lesson to be learned, particularly in today’s hyper-partisan environment, where the Republican leadership forces bills through Congress without even a hint of bipartisanship. Simply put, welfare reform worked because we all worked together. The 1996 Welfare Act shows us how much we can achieve when both parties bring their best ideas to the negotiating table and focus on doing what is best for the country.

Now, back to June 8 when former House Majority Leader Tom Delay delivered his farewell address to the chamber. When the welfare bill passed through the House, Delay held the office of majority whip. The whip is the member charged with keeping party leadership informed about how the caucus will vote. The term was lifted from British Parliament, where it was borrowed from fox hunting. Delay is so famous for cracking down on wayward members that the word could no longer do him justice. They dubbed him “The Hammer.”

I found that it is customary in speeches such as these to reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy.

Well, I can’t do that because partisanship, Mr. Speaker, properly understood, is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength, especially from the perspective of a political conservative.

And what does The Hammer claim as one of the chief victories of his take-no-prisoners brand of conservatism? You guessed it, welfare reform.

We reformed welfare programs that however well intentioned undermined the dignity of work and personal responsibility and perpetuated poverty.

Maybe it depends upon what meaning of the word ‘we’ is.

Last Sunday I visited The American Film Institutes’s Silver Theatre for a screening of the 70mm restoration of Lawrence of Arabia. Believe the hype. This is one big, beautiful movie. So quit screwing around and see it while you can.

Most praise pours forth for the film’s grand, sweeping shots of the Arabian Peninsula’s vast desert, but I found myself fascinated by the less voluminous things: Omar Sharif’s impeccable posture, the ragged red streaks cracking at the edges of Peter O’Toole’s eyes, the calm swagger of the stoic camels.

It’s bizarre to say this about a movie that, with an intermission, runs about four hours in length, but, somehow, there is not enough there. It lacks exposition. The audience is only granted a brief introduction in the Cairo barracks before being cast out with their hero. Who is this man who would shake off his own heritage so readily, so recklessly? The ambivalence and moodiness that bedevils O’Toole’s Lawrence certainly enriches the film. (Many of the themes will ring bells for anyone following the modern adventure in Iraq.) But, lacking a better understanding of our traveling companion, his vacillations can be as difficult to comprehend as the desert’s shifting winds.

A visit to AFI will require you summon your courage for the harrowing passage through that vulgar caricature of civilization known as “downtown” Silver Spring, but it’s worth it to see a great old movie on a great big screen. They’ll be showing this one Sunday nights all summer.