Jobs, Jabs, and the Joke of ‘Wokeness’: Why Bill Clinton’s Jobs Claim Stirs Controversy

The core of the discussion centers on Bill Clinton’s widely quoted, yet often criticized, statistic regarding job creation under Democratic vs. Republican presidents since the end of the Cold War.¹

The Jobs Claim: Fact vs. Context

The claim is that since the end of the Cold War, nearly all job growth in the U.S. has occurred under Democratic presidents.²

• The Statistic: The claim, popularized by figures like Simon Rosenberg, states that since 1989 (around the end of the Cold War), the U.S. economy has created approximately 51 million jobs, and of that total, ³$96\%$ to ⁴$97.4\%$ were created under Democratic presidents (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden).⁵

   

  • This is often simplified to the viral claim: “Democrats 50 million, Republicans 1 million.”⁶

     

• The Context (The ‘Bull’ Factor): The criticism leveled by the guest (and implied by Bill Maher) is that these numbers are misleading because they do not account for external factors or the timing of economic cycles.
  • Recession Timing: Much of the time Republican presidents were in office (George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Donald Trump) coincided with the start of recessions (e.g., 1990-1991, 2001, 2020 pandemic), leading to job losses that skew the cumulative numbers.
  • The Hand-Off: Democratic presidents often inherit the start of a recovery (which creates high job growth numbers) from the recession that began under the previous Republican administration.
  • The Pandemic: The cumulative figure for Donald Trump is particularly affected by the massive, unprecedented job losses (over 22 million) that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, wiping out the nearly 7 million jobs created in his first three years.⁷

     

• The Historical Trend: Regardless of context, the Democratic job creation rate has historically been faster.⁸ Economists estimate that since 1949, job growth has been about 2.2 to 2.4 times faster under Democratic presidents than Republicans.⁹

   

The Policy Dispute: Quality vs. Quantity

The debate pivots from the quantity of jobs to the quality of the economic environment, specifically the controversial role of financial deregulation.

• The Glass-Steagall Debate: The guest accuses Bill Clinton of setting the stage for the 2008 financial collapse by repealing parts of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 (specifically the affiliation restrictions between commercial and investment banks).¹⁰

   

  • The Argument: Many economists and commentators argue that this repeal encouraged speculative and risky activities and the rise of subprime lending, thereby contributing to the 2008 crisis.¹¹

     

  • The Counter-Argument: Others, including economists and former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, argue that the activities central to the 2008 crisis were not prohibited by Glass-Steagall, or that its repeal was only a minor factor compared to issues like subprime mortgages.¹²

     

• Wage Growth Metric: The guest counters the job number claim by focusing on wage growth, arguing that Donald Trump “wins” on the actual metrics that matter to working families.
  • Claim: Inflation-adjusted wage growth for the lowest-paid earners (lowest quintile) was robust under Trump before the pandemic (though specific numbers were debated, studies show growth was strong).¹³

     

  • Context: While overall real wage growth for the lowest-wage workers grew significantly faster in the post-2019 period (which includes the Biden administration) than in the previous four decades, this growth often coincided with high inflation, and the highest earners still saw the largest dollar increases.

The Cultural Critique: Performance Over Policy

Both Maher and Representative Crenshaw agree that the Democratic party is damaging itself by prioritizing “far-left” cultural and ideological issues over pragmatic policy and national pride.

• Center-Left vs. Far-Left: Maher advocates that Democrats “do better when they’re center-left and not far left,” arguing that extreme ideological stances (like on gender or identity politics) “stops being progress and starts being madness.”
• The “Performance” of Patriotism: Crenshaw criticizes the selective patriotism, noting Democrats put on a good “show” at their convention (bringing out flags and celebrities) but “they don’t want to contend with the fact that they own the last four years of policy.”
• The Education Crisis: The conversation ends by pointing to the crisis in education, where ideology has allegedly replaced merit, leaving students unprepared and graduating without actually “knowing anything.”