the middle class, many of whom were threatened
by unemployment.
The nation had become increasingly polarised,
not simply between black and white Americans
but between the haves and the have-nots, as the
destructive Los Angeles riots demonstrated in
May 1992. The US might in this respect prove to
be something of a model for the future of other
highly industrialised nations. The development of
an ‘underclass’ of the poor, with the black ethnic
group its largest but not its only component,
could produce further violence, crime and drug-
taking and increased dependence on welfare. A
vicious circle was set up: inner-city ghettos with
deteriorating education and employment oppor-
tunities became the derelict homes of the poor.
Well-paid employment requires education and
skills, and the market economy provided less
rather than more jobs for the unskilled. To put
them to work, to provide training and education,
to revitalise the inner cities, to provide more man-
ual jobs – all this would require more public
spending, which in turn would mean higher taxa-
tion and sacrifices by the better-off. When the
poor and those on low wages constituted a major-
ity they represented political power, as in F. D.
Roosevelt’s day. In the last quarter of the twenti-
eth century their numbers had shrunk, however,
and many were alienated from the democratic
process, which they saw as unhelpful to them.
They no longer constituted so significant a group
among those who vote. Less government interfer-
ence and lower tax burdens appealed to those who
vote, among them a large elderly population who
claimed medical and social benefits fully, without
regard to their income and wealth.
As long as the violence of the poorest section of
society was contained there was little real incentive
to ‘declare war’ on poverty, especially as it was
comfortingly argued that past efforts to do so in
the 1960s had not been effective. Now that the
Cold War was over, would the American people
resolve the crisis in many inner urban centres,
which at times of eruption could resemble a war?
That was one of the large questions of the 1990s.
The November 1992 election was a ‘three horse
race’. A millionaire, Ross Perot, stood as an inde-
pendent. It is a measure of America’s disenchant-
ment with politics and a tribute to Perot’s gutsy
television performances that he won 19 per cent of
the popular vote. A rather lacklustre Bush, who
could not persuade the American people that the
recession was over, lost the presidential election
but only by a small margin of popular votes. The
reforming governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton,
and his vice-presidential running-mate Albert
Gore, a senator from Tennessee, turned the White
House Democrat. The two men, both still in their
forties, belong to a new post-war generation.
Clinton projected the aura that reminded America
and the world of the dynamic Kennedy years
with one significant contrast. Unlike Jacqueline,
the new First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was
a formidable partner actively involved in poli-
tics. The question for the 1990s was how far
a change in direction, and the abandonment of
‘Reaganomics’ would meet the challenge of guid-
ing the world’s largest economy forwards success-
fully and curing the ills of poverty and deprivation
that continued to exist in an avowedly affluent
society.
The Clinton years at home were fortunate
years. The Cold War dividend appeared to be that
the US no longer faced any serious threats.
Clinton could choose to act abroad or not. No
longer need the president send soldiers abroad to
risk limb and life. The US could look after its own
interests at home. The American people would
give their support to a relaxed, comfortable presi-
dent who concentrated on making their lives bet-
ter and when it came to the end of the first term
they would re-elect him. The lesson learned from
Bush was that what mattered was the economy.
Clinton’s conduct of foreign affairs changed
markedly during his first administration from
1993 to 1997. In his election campaign he
accused Bush of looking abroad and neglecting
domestic issues. Clinton inherited the ill-fated
intervention in Somalia and the problem of Haiti,
where the military had driven out the elected
president; desperate refugees were fleeing to the
US, many perishing in their overcrowded boats.
The inhuman war in Bosnia had been raging for
a year, the Bosnian Muslims unable to defend
themselves. Clinton called for aid to Bosnia,