THE PLANK JUNE 10, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Terry McAuliffe's crushing defeat in yesterday's Virginia Democratic primary for governor is being hailed as a loss for Bill Clinton, the end of Clintonism and the Clinton era, and a triumph for Barack Obama and his politics. "The McAuliffe loss will be seen (rightly, mostly) as an echo of the Clinton loss and another blow to the Clinton brand," declared Politico's Ben Smith, while Hotline trumpeted, "McAuliffe Loss Wraps Clinton Era." That may be true in a very, very narrow sense--but it is for the most part false and misleading.
Most presidents assemble political machines of fundraisers, consultants, and advisors. Clinton's political retinue included McAuliffe, Mark Penn, Dick Morris, Harold Ickes, Ron Brown, and Mickey Kantor. These minions are usually not politicians, and if they eventually gain public office, it is usually in appointed positions like postmaster general or, more recently, secretary of commerce (which both Brown and Kantor held). But civil service reform and the two-term limit has prevented the creation of presidential machine politics on a par with local machine politics. Presidential machines don't usually survive a presidency.
The only reason Bill Clinton's political machine endured at all was because of Hillary Clinton, who relied on some of the same people. But it collapsed when she was defeated in the Democratic presidential primary last year. Obama co-opted much of what remained (including Clinton herself), and those he didn't co-opt went back to their own businesses or tried to establish their own political careers--like McAuliffe did. McAuliffe's defeat in Virginia was personal. Sure, Bill Clinton campaigned for him. But Virginia was never a strong state for Clinton, and it's not surprising that McAuliffe, who never held public office, was defeated by an experienced state legislator.
But more broadly, has the ascent of Obama ended the politics of the Clinton era--what is being called Clintonism? I'd draw a distinction between the Clinton of 1992-1994 and the Clinton of 1995-2000. There is enormous political continuity between the Clinton of "Putting People First" (his 1992 campaign manifesto drafted by Robert Reich and Derek Shearer) and today's Obama administration. When Clinton was elected, the economy was in recession, and Clinton's initial proposals (including a stimulus program, industrial policy, and national health insurance) anticipated what Obama has proposed during his first year. Like Obama, Clinton imagined himself as Franklin Roosevelt's successor--even paying a conspicuous visit during his first hundred days to Hyde Park.
But Clinton's political situation turned out to be more like that of Woodrow Wilson than Franklin Roosevelt. He was a Democrat governing in what turned out to be a Republican era who had been elected because of a split in the GOP; and after getting repudiated at the polls in November 1994, he had to pursue a much more cautious policy for the rest of his six years. Clinton's last six years were dominated by incremental reform and "new economy" boosterism. McAuliffe was associated with the fundraising shenanigans of those years--which certainly didn't help his attempt to win the Virginia primary.
Obama's task is one of making good on the promise, and avoiding the pitfalls, of the early Bill Clinton. He is the president Clinton aspired to be in 1993, but was prevented from being--partly due to political miscalculation (primarily on health care legislation), but mostly because of the circumstances of the time, which didn't invite the kind of bold initiatives that Clinton wanted to undertake. He has many of the same people working for him in key positions--Rahm Emmanuel, Larry Summers, and Hillary Clinton herself, to name the most obvious. They represent continuity with, rather than a break from, Clintonism, the Clinton legacy, and the Bill Clinton presidency.
--John B. Judis
16 comments
Obama shares Clinton's inability to prioritize, to focus on two or at most three Big Deliverables. Perhaps it's the curse of the gifted and clever politician, or maybe his lack of business experience, but he like Clinton wants to attempt everything and fix everything, including the modern, clever US president's great gig in the sky, Bringing Peace To The Middle East. Would that someone could persuade the current clever POTUS that *less is more*.
It's the health insurance, stupid. Do that, and you're a genius. Fail on that issue that trumps any f-p issue and all the big domestic issues, and no one will remember your fine words in Cairo.
- teplukhin2you
June 10, 2009 at 12:55pm
You have a point Tep. I don't agree (which thing would you shelve? Economic re-regulation? Letting the car companies fail?Climate change?), but it has the unmistakable ring of good sense anyway.
But making confrontation with the West less appealing is a gimme for him. He'd be a fool to pass it up because it might be too hard. His number one job is to further our interests and keep us safe, which is multi-faceted. He doesn't have the luxury to prioritize these things out of existence right now.
He leaves that impulse for the Mr Fierce Advocate shtick, gay people are always re-prioritized.
- Wandreycer1
June 10, 2009 at 1:40pm
BTW - I agree with this article completely. "The End of the Clinton Era" is deadline bait, low hanging fruit with no substance. It means nothing.
- Wandreycer1
June 10, 2009 at 1:41pm
I think George W. Bush's business experience helped him be a successful president.
- DC Spence
June 10, 2009 at 1:43pm
Fair enough, Spence-- I should have said _executive_ experience. The most successful presidents in the postwar era-- Ike, Reagan-- succeeded not due to business acumen but from a grownup recognition of limits, of the importance of focusing your energy on a few massive undertakings and achieving them. Ike didn't advance civil rights, but he also avoided f-p debacles, and he like Truman contained the soviets while ensuring the continued survival and success of New Deal capitalism at home. Reagan failed to rein in the growth of the federal government, but by hitching America's enormous high-tech lead to the arms race, he convinced the Politburo to capitulate, aka Gorby's "New Thinking".
Interestingly, none of the above successful presidents wasted much time on trying to bring peace to the middle east. Ike actually sided with Nasser in Suez. Is it ignorance, or just simple vanity, that causes supposedly smarter men like Clinton and Obama to grab the Israeli-Arab tar baby which Ike and Reagan wisely avoided?
- teplukhin2you
June 10, 2009 at 2:03pm
wandrey - "which thing would you shelve? Economic re-regulation? Letting the car companies fail?Climate change?"
Re-regulation is a top priority but it's a technical matter that doesn't require a lot of time in the bully pulpit or all hands on deck. Leave it to Congress and a few geeks to sort out.
GM and Chrysler are a disaster. It's frankly obscene that one set of American workers-- the poor schlubs whose pension funds are getting reamed by Team Obama's thuggish intervention-- is being asked to lose their shirts in order to preserve the $25,000/year health plans and absurdly generous wage structure of a tiny % of the US working class.
The notion that American Leyland will be turned around by the likes of UAW and Fiat (!), with guidance from Master Brian, the 31 year-old Hillarista law student whose experience consists mainly of campaign volunteering, is so ludicrous as to make you wonder about how much of the UAW slush is coming back to its originators. More giggles: check out Steve Rattner's track record of success in turning around all the media companies whose shares Quadrangle bought at the peak several years back. Next to these follies, even Berlusconi looks more serious. Banana republic time in the good ol' USA.
Re climate change, I think that moderate and low-income families will be a lot more willing to pony up the inevitable thousands it will cost them once they see our political class FINALLY severing the insane and cruel link between their employment situation and their access to health insurance.
So long-- I'm off to make another four-figure monthly COBRA payment, and pester the lawyers about getting that damned company set up so we can get health insurance that doesn't eat up nearly all our savings or deny us altogether due to that charming Americanism, a "pre-existing condition."
- teplukhin2you
June 10, 2009 at 2:14pm
tep, I'm a huge Ike admirer, but to say that Eisenhower "also avoided f-p debacles" is, well, it is to declare one's more or less total unfamiliarity with the history of the Eisenhower administration. Ike avoided a shooting war with the Soviets or any of their local proxies, yes, but the period 1953-1961 were very much not a holiday from foreign policy debacles. Also, Ike did advance civil rights -- he just didn't do it by pushing legislation in Congress. But a fair case can be made that Ike did more as president to advance civil rights than Kennedy.
- rhubarbs
June 10, 2009 at 3:36pm
What do you consider a debacle? Hungary? Suez? Gary Powers? The ascencion of Castro? Planning for the Bay of Pigs? There were also a bunch of Cold War shootdowns of US planes around the periphery of the USSR that were not widely known at the time.
Not arguing with you, just wondering.
- butchie b
June 10, 2009 at 3:54pm
Tep, not to pile onto what Rhubabs and Butchie wrote, but Ike's administration also oversaw the CIA-sponsored coups against Mossadegh in Iran (from which sprang Ayatollah Khomeini, the Hostage Crisis and 30 years of Iranian headaches for US foreign policy in the Middle East) and Arbenz in Guatemala (from which sprang lots of assorted anti-Americanism in Latin America, a 30-year civil war in Guatemala and revived communist movements all over Central America). Those were both pretty big debacles in my book.
Also, for someone who is pro-Israel, it's ironic that you have such a high regard for Ike's foreign policy vis-a-vis the Jewish state, what with openly siding with Nasser in the Suez Crisis and all. The treatment that Ike gave to Israel over that one warms the cockles of the hearts of the Walts and Mearshimers of the world. And the fact that the US basically beat up on its friends (Israel, Britain and France) in order to curry favor with the Muslim world is something that sends people into a lather today.
- wildboy
June 10, 2009 at 4:19pm
Tep, I don't think Clinton's problem was trying to do everything at once. He did focus on a few big things, but didn't do so well in terms of determining how and in what order to pursue them.. He should have done healthcare *before* alienating labor with NAFTA, and he probably could have put off the issue of gays in the military as well. It also didn't help that the healthcare plan was devised without working closely with Dems in Congress. I think it's to Obama's credit that he's largely letting Congress write it's own legislation on this one.
- AlanSP
June 10, 2009 at 4:24pm
End of the McAuliffe Era. I hope. Please go away, Terry.
- stgla
June 10, 2009 at 6:09pm
"What do you consider a debacle? Hungary? Suez? Gary Powers? The ascencion of Castro? Planning for the Bay of Pigs?"
Hungary, no. Nothing we could have done. Suez was a debacle for Britain and France, not us. Gary who? Anyway, the incident later gave an Irish rock band an idea for an unforgettable name. Castro's ascension was IIRC welcomed by us initially, and in any case I don't think Ike would have gone through with the cockamamie (no pun intended) Dulles scheme.
Alan - fair enough, but where Obama's dropping the ball IMO is in failing to spend his capital and use his oratorical skills to start defining how we'll pay for health insurance reform and why it's necessary now. That's not Teddy K's or any other congresscritter's job. It's up to POTUS. He's not fighting this most important battle, the funding one. I love UHC as much as anyone but I want it done intelligently, with eyes wide open as to just how much Health in Nautilus will cost you and me and Ma and Pa and all of us.
- teplukhin2you
June 10, 2009 at 9:44pm
wild - I'm a (true) realist, not a partisan of Israel. Realism in my book entails recognizing that the settlements are not the real issue and that in any case, this conflict will probably still be going when our grandchildren are out texting or facebooking or alpha-beaming or whatever with their virtual friends.
- teplukhin2you
June 10, 2009 at 9:46pm
I agree mostly, tep. In Hungary, we rather encouraged the uprising, sort of the Bay of Pigs, which was Kennedy's mistake, not Ike's.
So I really don't see too many Ike "debacles" from 1953-61.
Rhubs, please clarify.
- butchie b
June 11, 2009 at 11:01am
After Consumerism: Why Americans Will Only Be Happy When They Stop Spending So Much Money , by Amitai
- Anonymous
June 11, 2009 at 11:10am
hmm, good point re Hungary. Apparently we did a lot of that encourage-and-disappear stuff wrt E European agents. Nasty business, not s.t. we can be proud of. But not a debacle.
- teplukhin2you
June 11, 2009 at 4:20pm