JONATHAN CHAIT FEBRUARY 11, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I've always believed that Bill Clinton's "Third Way" and the Democratic Leadership Council from which it sprang offered some pretty good policies but virtually nothing in the way of a coherent philosophy other than "do stuff that works and/or is popular." Here's Ron Brownstein's summary of the opposite view:
Clinton blended the DLC’s centrist reformism with his own Southern populism to produce a distinctive governing philosophy that lastingly shifted the political debate within his party—and the nation.
Drawing heavily on DLC thinking, Clinton argued that economic policy should prioritize growth over redistribution; that social policy should link opportunity and personal responsibility (most notably by requiring welfare recipients to work but providing them education and child care); and that fiscal discipline was compatible with government activism. Challenging his party’s retreat from global engagement since Vietnam, Clinton embraced both free trade and a robust U.S. international role. Rejecting “false choices” of the Left and Right, he insisted on a “third way” between them. The DLC “made a major contribution to breaking out of the old Right-Left debate and formulating the debate the way it should be—as tomorrow versus yesterday,” Clinton said in an interview.
As president, Clinton sometimes strayed from these DLC-influenced ideas (especially during his chaotic first two years).
Let's consider these three elements of the DLC's distinctive governing philosophy. First, growth over redistribution. This isn't the same thing as saying Clinton opposed redistribution. Indeed, his DLC-inspired platform emphasized raising taxes on the rich and reducing them on the middle class. That is pure redistribution. Now, it's true that Clinton favored growth, and in the latter part of his term he chose to reduce the national debt over more redistributive activist government alternatives. But I think the better way to characterize this mix is that Clinton, like traditional liberals, favored both growth and redistribution, and he crafted policies that blended the two goals effectively.
Second, Clinton and the DLC believed "social policy should link opportunity and personal responsibility (most notably by requiring welfare recipients to work but providing them education and child care)." "Responsibility" was a big slogan for Clinton and the DLC. But I think welfare reform was not merely the most notable element of this philosophy, it was the entirety of this philosophy. What other ways did Clinton, but not traditional liberals, demand responsibility? I think welfare reform had both a strong substantive and political justification. It's the attempts to define it as stemming from a philosophy that don't persuade me.
Finally, they argued "fiscal discipline was compatible with government activism." Sure. But dread paleoliberals Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis believed the same thing, and they also had plans to reduce the deficit.
Again, Clinton did move his party to the center, for both substantive and political reasons, and generally with success. The issues on which he moved to the center, the party hasn't moved back. But the efforts to define that move as a coherent philosophy struggled at the time, and continue to struggle, which is part of the reason the DLC failed to adapt itself to the post-Clinton world and ultimately died.
10 comments
"Indeed, his DLC-inspired platform emphasized raising taxes on the rich and reducing them on the middle class. That is pure redistribution." Does Chait equate progressive taxation with re-distribution? I'm beginning to think he does. I don't. "Clinton, like traditional liberals," didn't impose taxes on the upper income groups first and then look for ways to spend the revenues on the lower income groups; now that would be re-distribution. No, Clinton adopted a budget and then imposed the taxes necessary to pay for it, apportioning the tax burden such that those most able to pay (the upper income groups) have a somewhat (with the emphasis on somewhat) higher burden. Of course, this issue is mostly academic, since federal taxes are progressive only as between the lower income groups and the upper income groups, and are essentially flat as between the middle to upper middle income groups and the upper income groups; that conventional wisdom (or at least conventional wisdom among those on the right) assumes that federal taxes are highly progressive doesn't make it so.
- rayward
February 11, 2011 at 10:58am
You are more persuasive than Ron Brownstein is, Jonathan. The "governing philosophy" of the DLC seemed to me to consist of the mantra "move to the center." And on their approach to corporations, it was to move somewhat to the right-of-center.
- liberalref
February 11, 2011 at 11:47am
"But I think welfare reform was not merely the most notable element of this philosophy, it was the entirety of this philosophy." I'm not so sure. Yes, the other ways this was manifested in the Clinton years were sometimes silly--remember school uniforms? But in this area, Obama has picked up where Clinton left off, not necessarily in actually tying government grants with some form of personal action, but in insisting that parents take greater responsibility for the education of their children; in tying certain types of aid to state education to performance (Race to the Top); and so on. Whether or not Mondale or other paleoliberals deserved it, they somehow earned the reputation for trying to solve problems by "throwing money at them." The DLC "philosophy", if there was one, was to seek creative ways either to avoid expenditure while seeking solutions or to justify such expenditure by reciprocal responsibilities, be they personal, corporate, or local government.
- timteeter
February 11, 2011 at 11:48am
I don't think you're being fair the DLC here. Before and while he was president, Clinton used the New Covenant frame to describe his governing philosophy, and I think that frame serves as an ideology that is centrist but also fairly coherent. You could line up the Left-Right spectrum of ideologies like this: Far Right: Free market good, government bad: federal government should only do national defense and protect contracts Right: Free market good, government a necessary evil to fill in where market breaks down: government should build interstate highway systems, invest in pure science and health research, etc. DLC: There is a convenant between government and the various segments of society (a non-adversarial view): capital should be given the opportunity to make profits by having free trade, free flow of capital, etc. but has responsibility to pay more in taxes, provide workers with good benefits, protect environment, etc. Labor should be given opportunities to earn a living through government-provided access education, healthcare, and unemployment benefits, but has responsibility to work, improve skills to compete against international competition, etc. Left: Government is good, free enterprise is necessary but a potential source of evil so labor needs to be protected from capital: trade and capital mobility should be heavily restricted, profits should be heavily taxed, labor should receive generous unconditional government-provided benefits, etc. Far Left: Government is good, free enterprise is evil: government should own all property and means of production and take care of everyone from cradle to grave. I don't have those quite correct but each, including the DLC position (as I, based on low information, understand it) is a pretty coherent ideology. Just because sometimes people with other ideologies sometimes agree with someone else's ideology doesn't mean that ideology doesn't exist. Just because Gingrich decided that Medicare is sacred doesn't mean the right doesn't have an ideology that Medicare shouldn't exist, nor that the left doesn't have an ideology that Medicare should exist.
- tysonsahib
February 11, 2011 at 2:14pm
"Do stuff that works" would be a pretty compelling governing philosophy, I think.
- amayi
February 11, 2011 at 2:29pm
Tyson, Very interesting post--however, it seems to me that the centre of mass of the Democratic party has always been closer to the views you ascribe to the DLC than to those you ascribe to the maintream Left in the US. I could be wrong, because I didn't live through the seventies, but it seems to me that that's the way things were in, say, the early eighties, before the DLC's existence. I also take issue with your indication that the Left thinks 'government is good.' Very few on the left think this. It would be more accurate to say that they believe that government CAN play a necessary role in defending the interests of the little people. People on the left hate government when it serves the interests of the right, which it very often seems to do. The 'government is good' depiction is a caricature.
- Curran1
February 11, 2011 at 2:54pm
This is a grumpy, nit-picky analysis. The DLC didn't have a coherent philosophy, and what's more, it was bad. The DLC's "philosophy" was as coherent as any other "philosophy" of a group of active politicians--that is to say, not very. But it's certainly been successful within the Democratic Party. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama. How are these guys NOT DLC?
- AlanVann
February 11, 2011 at 2:57pm
How was Al Gore not of the DLC? Do you even recall the 2000 presidential season, AV? Al Gore's campaign slogan was "The people vs the powerful." This populist trope was anything but of the DLC.
- liberalref
February 11, 2011 at 4:50pm
Curran, I don't disagree with anytthing you said. I wasn't trying to capture what voters actually thought, I was just jotting down some stylized ideologies. I think the classic left position is closer to what gore tried to do, people vs powerful (w the intention that gov should be on side of people), and the dlc view is more transactional than confrontational.
- tysonsahib
February 11, 2011 at 6:23pm
Tyson- Cool, and I think you're onto something with the latter observation.
- Curran1
February 12, 2011 at 1:48pm