Triangulation Redux: Would Obama Be The 1992 Bill Clinton? And Is That What We Need Now?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:14:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Matt Bai writes:

Some Democrats, though, and especially those who are apt to call themselves “progressives,” offer a more complicated and less charitable explanation. In their view, Clinton failed to seize his moment and create a more enduring, more progressive legacy . . . because his centrist, “third way” political strategy, his strategy of “triangulating” to find some middle point in every argument, sapped the party of its core principles. . . .

David Brooks wrote a glowing piece on Barack Obama. The piece was an obvious swipe at Paul Krugman's evaluation of Obama. Some, like Matt Yglesias saw Krugman as engaging in payback, demonstrating that they have not been reading Krugman at all on this issue). Here is part of what Brooks wrote:

[Obama] has a worldview that precedes political positions. Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. . . . But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. . . . This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.

A post-politics "Third Way" has been Obama's message. His message is the most like the 1992 message of Bill Clinton. The question is is that the right one for this political climate? Are Democrats, are progressives, is the country, where they were in 1992? On Hardball yesterday, John Edwards said:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Harry Truman [and Hillary Clinton] said they were going to bring healthcare to the people, what was wrong with them? JOHN EDWARDS: First of all, they were living in a different environment . . . If you look at what is happening to healthcare today as opposed to when Senator Clinton was addressing it, the health care system has gotten much worse. . . . I think we are in a place where the American People are ripe for change. We just need a leader who will stand up.

So the question is do we want and need the Clinton Third Way political approach of the 90s?

When Jeralyn and other bloggers met with Bill Clinton . . . I mused this question:

I asked myself what I would have liked to discuss with Clinton. I thought of this issue most of all - 'does Clinton think his Third Way/New Democrat approach, that worked so well for him (did it work for the Dem Party?) in the 90s (of course since he is the best politician of his generation it is not clear that using of other approaches would not have worked for him) is the right political approach in today's hyperpartisan age of Bush Republicanism?
In the past month, Bill Clinton has provided his answer:

Former President Bill Clinton rallied Iowa Democrats Saturday with a blistering attack on the Republican leadership in Washington . . . Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, have alienated rank-and-file voters by working for the interests of the wealthy and painting opposing viewpoints as unpatriotic, Clinton said in his 45-minute speech at Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines.

In a way this answer was not surprising as "the Clintons" learned the limitations of the Third way:

One of the most enduring false myths of the Clinton years is that it was solely Dick Morris' triangulation strategy that revived Clinton's fortunes after the 1994 election disaster. I think the data makes clear that more than Clinton's triangulation (which did have a role of course, the role of removing negative branding opportunities for the GOP), it was the appearance of a political adversary easy to demonize - namely Newt Gingrich.

I believe the data makes clear that Clinton's popularity really jumped when he stood and fought Gingrich in December 1995 on the budget:

As we go to press President Clinton is locked in a battle with Congressional Republicans over next year’s budget. The President has vetoed much of the budget sent to him by Congress and has twice allowed the Federal government to "shut down" in the absence of an actual budget or a stop-gap spending measure that would allow full governmental activity. The sudden appearance of the President’s backbone has won him some high praise from congressional Democrats and liberal pundits as well as a dramatic shift in his approval ratings from the American electorate. Clinton’s positive ratings eclipsed the 50 percent mark for the first time in two years in the wake of his first veto. Concurrently, Newt Gingrich’s standing in the polls has fallen below the 30 percent mark as the public becomes increasingly dismayed with a man whose veneer of sincerity is so thin as to be nearly transparent.

As Lincoln and FDR before him had successfully done, Clinton successfully placed the extremist imprimatur on his political opponents. And this branding had lasting power:

The failing of Dole's campaign is that it has not clearly addressed who, exactly this Bill Clinton fellow is. It's not just Dole's problem, either - a recent New York Times/CBS poll found that while 43% of voters consider Bill Clinton a liberal, 36% see him as a moderate, and 12% (the Communist delegation, perhaps?) think he's a conservative. Moreover, 50% of self-identified moderates voters say President Clinton is one of them. Meanwhile, 53% of the voters claim Dole's a conservative, and the crucial moderate voters agree - a large majority feel that Dole stands to their right.

I have written on the paranoid style in American politics and that I think the central battle of politics is:

And that is FDR's lesson for Obama. Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.

I have written on Barack Obama a great deal in the past 2 years, specifically on his troubling (to me) political style. I have explained my views in detail. And while it is true Obama has gotten better on this front, he still seems to eschew being a Fighting Democrat. There is no question that Barack Obama has the potential to be a transforming political figure. His talent is immense. But it is my view that until he embraces being a progressive who fights for his beliefs, he will never be such a figure.

To me it is the central question of this campaign.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Obama On Healthcare In the Illinois Legislature >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Triangulation Redux: Would Obama Be The 1992 Bill Clinton? And Is That What We Need Now? | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The problem of a Democratic Congress (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Maryb2004 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:12:51 AM EST

is what none of the candidates ever address.

It was the same problem Bill Clinton had in 1992 when he took office. A Congress controlled by his own party but which he couldn't control. A recalcitrant Democratic Congress controlled even at that time by money, not by the will of the voting public. And the control by money has just increased over the years.

Bush was able to push his agenda through during the first 6 years not just because he had a Republican Congress but because his administration figured out how to work them. Sure, he milked 9/11 for all it was worth but his administration and Republican Party leaders also made sure that the money flowed to Republicans on the Hill from the true moneyed Republican constituency. Eventually it came back to bite them, but Bush got 6 years to transform this country.

Can Obama be transformative? Can any of the Democratic candidates be transformative when they really can't rely on a Democratic congress that is controlled by moneyed interests that aren't progressive? I don't know.

I liked how Atrios condensed the campaigns:

Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

At first it struck me as unfair to Obama, but the more I think about it the more Obama's thinking does seem magical. The system includes the Democratic Congress. He isn't going to get a transformative agenda through a Democratic Congress by the magic of his personality.

Of course I don't think Edwards is going to be able to destroy the system with a Democratic Congress working tooth and nail against him.

That leaves Hillary who seems to have conceded that real transformation isn't possible given the system we have. We can just make incremental changes. Probably the most realistic approach but not something that's easy to rally behind.

The budget fight got Clinton reelected IMO (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:47:38 AM EST

Addressing his remarks to House Republicans, he declared: "I will not let you destroy Medicare. I will veto this bill."

I want to believe that Obama (none / 0) (#2)
by kovie on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:20:56 AM EST

is persuing this "third way" approach in order to maximize his chances for winning the general should he get nominated, and preemptively innoculate himself against inevitable RW charges that he's a partisan liberal (who's a Madrassah-attending, coke-dealing, Muslim black man no less!).

I.e. trying to make himself as unthreatening and appealing as possible to that vast white soft conservative center that he'll need in order to win and govern effectively and which deep down probably still buys into many conservative values and doesn't feel comfortable with genuinely progressive ones.

Which makes some sense, if true, from a purely political perspective--the country is rejecting conservatism but has not yet fully embraced progressivism, and, unfortunately, a black man running for president clearly still has certain hurdles to overcome that a white man (or woman) would not.

And yet, is this the case, or is he not pretending to be a centrist, and is in fact one? And if this is the case, and he's just pretending, by adopting this approach, to get elected, is he not locking himself in to a certain mode of governing that will be hard to shift to a more progressive mode if and when he is elected?

I admit to having lost some regard for Obama in recent weeks. Not that Clinton has at all been exemplary, which makes this a difficult choice. Nor have I been able to warm up much to Edwards--I like what he says and appears to stand for, but somehow he just doesn't do it for me in terms of either sincerity or appearing to be able to implement his appealing and impressive agenda.

Which is what still makes Obama my weakly preferred choice, but not by much. And all these troubling signs and question marks to consider. I suspect that he's more progressive in his values and goals than the Clintons. But will he prove to be up to the task of doing what will often be necessary to try to implement a progressive agenda--i.e. fight, when fighting's called for? Or will it all be about getting reelected in '12? He has the makings of a great leader, but will he be one? Does he want to be one? Will he try, especially in the face of adversity?

I just don't know right now.

Some quotes for you. (none / 0) (#13)
by illissius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:19:48 AM EST

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

(yeah, I don't think those faith-based ideas hold much promise, either.)

Which is not to say that Obama doesn’t have very strong partisan convictions. “There are times I think we’re not ambitious enough,” Obama says. “I remember back in 2004, one of the candidates had made a proposal about universal health care, and some DLC-type commentator said, ‘We can’t propose this kind of big-government costly program, because it’ll send a signal we’re tax-and-spend liberals.’ But that’s not a good reason to not do something. You don’t give up on the goal of universal health care because you don’t want to be tagged as a liberal. People need universal health care.”

The job required negotiating across party lines to come up with reform proposals, then presenting them to the Democratic caucus. Senator Kirk Dillard, the Republican Senate president’s appointee, said, “Barack was literally hooted and catcalled in his caucus.” On the Senate floor, Mr. Dillard said, “They would bark their displeasure at me, and then they’d unload on Obama.”
Mr. Obama entered the discussions favoring contribution limits, said Mike Lawrence, now director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. But he realized they had no chance of passing. So the legislation, passed in 1998, banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.
“I know he wanted to limit contributions by corporations or labor unions, and he certainly wanted to stop the transfers of huge amounts of money from the four legislative caucus leaders into rank-and-file members’ campaigns,” Mr. Dillard said. “But he knew that would never happen. So he got off that kick and thought disclosure was a more practical way to shine sunlight on what sometimes are unsavory practices.”
The disclosure requirement “revolutionized Illinois’s system,” said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, “put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown.”
His role, though, did not endear Mr. Obama to everyone.

Obama has thought about being president. He’s never been coy about that. I bring up Henry Louis Gates’s essay about Colin Powell again. In it, Gates drew a very sharp distinction: Jesse Jackson wanted to be the first black president. Powell, were he ever to run, wanted to be the first president who happened to be black.
“I don’t think that those two are necessarily opposing,” says Obama. “I don’t want people to pretend I’m not black or that it’s somehow not relevant. But ultimately,” he says, “I’d want to be a really great president, you know? And then I’d worry about all the other stuff. Because there are a lot of mediocre or poor presidents.”

(from here, here, and here)

Yeah, there's the whole thing about rhetoric versus action (which is why I don't favor Edwards either), and he's not perfect; rather disappointing in spots (Iraq funding and FISA just now, for two). But I don't think you have to be afraid of him being a closet DLCer. He uses unity and bipartisanship as a tactical weapon, not as an end in itself.


Your last line (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:24:13 AM EST

is the key to the problem.

"Unity and bipartisanship" are IMPOTENT weapons, indeed, they will be harnful to any progressive agenda.

It is a problem of tactics and political style that I am highlighting.


: Well (none / 0) (#17)
by illissius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:04:47 PM EST

if the weapon turns out to be impotent, he'll hopefully have the good sense to ditch it for a better one. I don't think it's a given that it will be, though.
I don't know. I just don't get the same vibe from Obama's rhetoric that many others seem to be getting. Notice how often he says things like "unity", and how rarely he says things like "compromise". I would guess his strategy to be along the lines of: convince them where we can (not the corporations, obviously, but conservative voters very possibly), fight them where we can't, and compromise when we have no other choice. And charm them on style while having our way on substance.
Of course, he can't really come out and say this.

Depends (none / 0) (#20)
by kovie on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:04:24 PM EST

on how he intends to use such "weapons".

If it's as a way to set Pubs up as obstructionists if they fail to meet him halfway--with halfway being defined on progressive terms, not on Joe Klein terms--and not as Clintonian welfare reform-type triangulation, then that wouldn't be a bad use of "unity and bipartisanship". Kind of a progressive (i.e. virtuous) version of "compassionate conservatism" (i.e. throw 'em a bone and make it look like porterhouse steak and just dare them to refuse it). But is that what he would actually do? Certainly there is some political merit in packaging aggressive and combative leadership as cooperative and fair. But will it only be packaging, or will there be actual, excessive and unnecessary compromise and concession?

I understand the need to placate the political center among the electorate and media and thus minimize the effectiveness of RW pushback. But not at the expense of advancing progressive goals or ideas. A very tough needle to thread, I realize. Is that what he intends to do, and is he up to it?


Obama isn't Third Way (none / 0) (#3)
by joejoejoe on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:44:08 AM EST

Third way isn't "post-politics", it's entirely political.

Third Way politics are an attempt to reorganize left poltical parties into a center-left coaltion that moves the emphasis from a government-run safety net to market based pro-business solutions with a lot of voodoo about technology transforming government See Joe Klein's gibberish about Social Security.

There is, then, a profitable discussion to be had between 'ownership' Republicans and 'third-way' Democrats about transforming the stagnant bureaucracies of the Industrial Age.

Obama is proposing raising SS taxes on the rich (top 6%). That's good old-fashioned progressive taxation. How is that Third Way? Obama talks about technology mostly in terms of old community values like openness and fairness, not in Third Way boosterism terms which fueled the tech bubble of the late 90s.

Third Way politics has NOTHING in common with Obama's politics. I understand Obama's rhetoric is opposed by some in the "Fighting Left" but his policies are not Third Way on their face. I don't know how you could say otherwise.

What is Third Way?

On Sunday, April 25, 1999, the President Clinton and the DLC hosted a historic roundtable discussion, The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century, with five world leaders including British PM Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dutch PM Wim Kok, and Italian PM Massimo D'Alema, the First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and DLC President Al From.
The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.
The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces "tolerant traditionalism," honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.

You've got a 1000 words talking about Clintonism, a dismissive link to Matt Yglesias and no evidence to back up your claim that Obama is Third Way. I respect the fact that you've got honestly held stylistic problems with Obama but that's rhetoric, not policy. Third Way ISN'T about rhetoric, it's about forming a dominant center-left party around pro-business, free trade, and market policies. How does that square with Obama's record or platform?

As Ken Burns said in his recent endorsement of Obama -- a genuine appeal to the "better angels" of our nature hasn't been a historically bad thing. Uncommon for sure but not bad. Lincoln was a soft spoken gentle man. If you read his telegrams to Grant ("Hold on with a bull-dog grip, and chew and choke, as much as possible") you also know he was as hard a fighter as they've ever come.

Oh please (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:52:58 AM EST

Third Way-ism is NOT what you say it is. It is a political gimmick.

Frankly, there is nothing of substance to it. It is a political pose.


Tell it to the Clintons and Tony Blair (none / 0) (#9)
by joejoejoe on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:08:36 AM EST

I agree that "Third Way" was mostly a BS pose (except the cozying up to business) but even if we agree Third Way was nothing but a pose it's not the pose Obama is striking. Obama has gone out of his way to avoid being lumped in with Third Way groups.

I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC," said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. "It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC...listed me in their `New Democrat' directory," Obama continued. "Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention."

DLC equals Third Way.

Obama rejected DLC's attempt to co-opt him to sell their vision.


: No he has gone out of his way (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:11:38 AM EST

to be in a DIFFERENT Third Way pose because to be in the DLC woulod be death for his image.
this is the NEW post-politics, AFTER the 90s. Of course he is going to reject the 90s in a "pox on both houses kind of way." That is THE PROBLEM!
You gotta be kidding me.

Interesting Obama History from Krugman (none / 0) (#4)
by BDB on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:51:11 AM EST

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

He does seem to believe what he says - that he wants to bring everyone to a table to work together. In some ways I admire him for it, I just don't think it has a chance in hell of working on the national level.

: I just saw that (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:51:55 AM EST

and posted on it.

D'Oh (none / 0) (#6)
by BDB on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:52:36 AM EST

Screwed up the link again, sorry Jeralyn. I'm an idiot!

Here's the right way
Krugman.

J's traveling today (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:53:34 AM EST

Apologize to me . . . . Heh.


: Then (none / 0) (#21)
by BDB on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 05:48:10 PM EST

I apologize to you!

I have no problem with Obama's approach... (none / 0) (#12)
by magster on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:14:58 AM EST

...as long as he is willing to abandon it when it doesn't work.

An argument can be made that Obama's approach is better PR, becuase Obama can set himself up as having no choice but to act like Edwards once negotiations break down. Coming out swinging may lead to corporations saying they are victims of government overreaching.

Not what I am saying (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:25:29 AM EST

"Reform" as a political style is not the problem.

As a commenter says below, he is running on "bipartisanship and unity" - entirely different things.

That is my point.

Comedy stretching (none / 0) (#18)
by koshembos on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:17:44 PM EST

How about is Obama FDR, or Lincoln? What is the rush?

Are we so insecure that we need to take Obama's picture next to Clinton's cutout?

Why Clinton failed (none / 0) (#19)
by diogenes on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:03:22 PM EST

The Third Way failed because Hillary bungled Health Care reform when the democrats were control of congress, leading to the loss of congress from 1994-2000. If Obama has a Democratic majority (which he is more likely to preserve and increase than Hillary is), then things will be different.

actually, (none / 0) (#22)
by cpinva on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:49:00 PM EST

i want a democratic president who's sole purpose is the ripping and shredding of any republican stupid enough to get in his/her way. a democratic president who takes great delight in utterly, totally and completely destroying everything republican in the country, including their stupid elephant.

i want a democrat in the oval office who will happily mount the heads of every republican around, as trophies on their wall, their spines used as flag poles. i want a democratic president so vicious, that the republican's knees shake, and they wet themselves, at the mere mention of his/her name.

i want a democratic president so uncontrollable, he/she has to be held in restraints, and wheeled into the office every morning in a steel cage, lest it shred any stray republican foolish enough to be around.

i want a democratic president who treasures the moments, much like those famous kodak commercials, when they get to tear apart a chris matthews, rush limbaugh, sean hannity or ann coulter in public, using their flayed skins for lamp shades.

oh, they should also be sensitive and caring.

ripping and shredding (none / 0) (#23)
by diogenes on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:57:23 PM EST

Your ripping and shredding president will be blocked by the blue dog democrats. Neither Reagan nor the early GW Bush were rippers-they were charming, and got their way for awhile to make substantial changes. If Bill the charmer rather than Hillary the ripper/secretive/shredder were in charge of health care reform in 1994, when there was a national readiness for it, we'd have a national health care system today.

Krugman is wrong (none / 0) (#24)
by DaveFox on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:56:21 PM EST

Alter over at Newsweek responds to Krugman's anti-Obama push: http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882

Nobody has ever been elected president running a populist campaign that so many in the netroots seem to be demanding. Not Lincoln in 1860, not FDR in 1932, not JFK in 1960, not Al Gore in 2000.

On policy, there is very little difference between Obama and Edwards. I think Obama's method and his rhetoric make him more likely to get progressive bills passed. It's very similar to JFK and Reagan's leadership style. Create an aura around the presidency, and use that to push Congress to enact your agenda. I think in the end, this style is much more effective than John Edwards' give 'em hell politics.