home

The Restoration: Obama Adopts Clintonism Circa 1990s

In January 2008, after writing for many months about Barack Obama's Clinton/Third Way campaign, I found agreement from E.J. Dionne:

Obama's not particularly original insight was a central premise of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. . . . In many ways, Obama is running the 2008 version of the 1992 Clinton campaign. You have the feeling that if Bill Clinton did not have another candidate in this contest, he'd be advising Obama and cheering him on.

Of course the problem here is it is 2008, not 1992. As I have written, I believe Bill Clinton would NOT be running his 1992 campaign today. . . The politics of today demand a politics of contrast from Fighting Democrats. . . . It is ironic that it is Barack Obama who is reliving 1992.

Today, Dionne argues that Obama is succeeding in creating a Third Way:

Bill Clinton tried to create a Third Way. President Obama is doing it. This is exciting, but also disconcerting.

Exciting? Welll. Disconcerting? On some issues. What it should not be is surprising. It always surprised me that vehement Clinton haters could so easily embrace Obama. One of the leading Clinton haters was Booman. His reaction to Dionne's column is interesting:

I like E.J. Dionne. I think he's on to something in his latest column. He's basically saying that President Obama is creating a center-left liberal establishment in Washington that is reminiscent of what we saw in the glory days between 1933-1968. Here's where I think Dionne is wrong. It's not really Obama who is creating this.

I think that is right. Obama did not create this political moment. George Bush did. Booman continues:

[George W.] Bush was (s)elected without winning the popular vote or the Electoral College. He initially had narrow majorities in Congress. Yet, he governed as if he had won a giant mandate. He pushed as hard as he could to make as much change as he could and he pushed a hard-right agenda. This polarized the country and ultimately led to failure in every major field of endeavor.

This is inaccurate. Bush's pushing for his policies did not lead to political failure. It was the POLICIES that did that. They were terrible policies. In other words, Bush's political style is not what did Republicans in -- it was Bush's governance that did Republicans in.

In my view, stated many times before, Obama and Democrats will have continued political success based on the efficacy of Democratic governance, not based on Obama's political style. Booman writes:

What is the point of power, after all, if you don't use it when you have it? That's one side of the argument. The other side is that the Democrats can do more good in the long-run by building a ruling coalition. In beating the Republicans down to a tiny rump party, the Democrats ensure that we won't be faced with periodic Republican resurgencies that cause serious and lasting damage to the Republic.

Obama didn't create the center-left Establishment, but he is doing everything he can to protect and consolidate it. Whether his efforts bear fruit depends in large part on two factors. He must create a national health care system that fundamentally changes the contours of debate in this country by moving it far to the left. And he must avoid letting Afghanistan become this generation's Vietnam.

(Emphasis supplied.) Even Booman recognizes that building long term political success for Obama and the Democrats requires governing success. He focuses on health care and Afghanistan as the key issues. Others will focus on other issues. The point though is that it will be governing success that builds a long term Democrat governing majority, not political style.

The Barack Obama Presidency was possible, in part, because Bill Clinton governed successfully. It become inevitable when George Bush governed as badly as any President in history.

Whether another Democrat will follow Obama and whether there will be Democratic congresses for the near future depends on how well President Obama governs.

Speaking for me only

< To Speculate Is Rational | Monday Night TV and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Whatever "Way" Obama is (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Anne on Mon May 25, 2009 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    creating, I'm not sure it will end up being to the benefit of the people it was hoped it would benefit.

    Health care reform is a prime example; I know you don't do health care, but how it is being handled is telling a lot of us how this whole "Third Way" or "New Way" or "Obama Way" is going to turn out.

    And in the course of this governing style (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon May 25, 2009 at 04:20:45 PM EST
    some of us aren't getting the change we need.

    I really wish that we could get a Democrat to adopt George Bush's governing style but to push food good policy.

    Clintonism was for the 90s and the purely evil Gingrich ascendency. That's not where we are anymore.

    And I think EJ is frankly (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon May 25, 2009 at 04:22:30 PM EST
    not that smart. (You covered that column here).

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 25, 2009 at 10:47:52 PM EST
    Dionne isn't terribly bright.  

    He's occasionally on mark but in the end he has a touch of Village fever.

    Parent

    Style does matter (none / 0) (#5)
    by ChiTownMike on Mon May 25, 2009 at 04:46:22 PM EST
    I think BTD is wrong in discounting it. There is no end result unless the President and the congress has the 'style' to suggest the right things in a way that resonates and then has the right style to shepard them to completion.

    Parent
    Shepherding to completion (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 25, 2009 at 04:54:41 PM EST
    is the key.

    But you have to have  good policies shepharded.

    To be clear, I supported Obama because I thought he was in a better position to do the shepharding.

    Parent

    Dangerous. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Cream City on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:01:02 PM EST
    So far, at least as to some of (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon May 25, 2009 at 09:55:25 PM EST
    issues about which I care.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:58:20 AM EST
    you supported him because he was the Media Darling and there, ha ha, was not a nickels worth of difference between him ans Clinton.

    Parent
    But using appealing "style" (none / 0) (#25)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 25, 2009 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    to push for bad policies, will eventually backfire, IMO.  Higher unemployment last month in 44 states; what if our plan to withdraw soldiers in Iraq proceeds, & IRaq falls into chaos?  Or problems in Paksitan/Afghanistan boil over? Healthcare plan without single payer will not get costs down sufficiently, will fail, and talk of a national healthcare plan will be over forever more.

    The jury's not back yet.  

    Parent

    Don't be too sure....Gingrich (none / 0) (#8)
    by oldpro on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:00:49 PM EST
    is back and he's getting more TV facetime than anyone but Obama.

    Parent
    He's a sideshow (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:04:29 PM EST
    And for the moment, Republicans are uncompetitive nationally.

    Parent
    Americans love sideshows... (none / 0) (#15)
    by oldpro on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:16:31 PM EST
    I'm sure you've noticed.

    Parent
    He can keep yammering (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:30:10 PM EST
    but he has no influence.

    Parent
    Time will tell, I suppose. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by oldpro on Mon May 25, 2009 at 07:52:51 PM EST
    I certainly hope you're right but Americans are taken in over and over again by fast-talking, pompous asses.  Just twirl the dial on your television on Sunday morning...and I am NOT talking about the talking heads...although they, too, often fit the description.

    Parent
    With Rove and Cheney as runnerups. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:01:26 PM EST
    The Third Way (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 25, 2009 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    That is when a Democratic President and Congress get elected on Democratic agendas and then pass Republican policies.

    Not a big fan of the "third way."

    Can I expect to hear the word (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by oldpro on Mon May 25, 2009 at 05:59:38 PM EST
    'triangulation' any time soon?

    Told you so! (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by denise k on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:00:55 PM EST
    To all the true believers from last year who beat up on Hillary and said "Oh no, Obama will never be like Bill Clinton -- evil Bill Clinton, I say, I told you so...

    I had the satisfaction of saying that (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by oldpro on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:14:13 PM EST
    (almost) at a dinner party Saturday night.  I listened quietly as the entire table, one by one, expressed their outrage over no single-payer healthcare advocates at the table giving congressional testimony...with endless quotes on the wisdom of Bill Moyers' program and the California nurses, etc.

    Since I'm not known for being quiet for long, the main outraged non-activist asked after a long pause..."What do you think?"

    "I think you should have voted for Hillary," I said, "if single-payer was important to you.  Only Hil and Edwards plans would have led to singlepayer...they were for universal healthcare.  Obama was not.  "NO mandates," he said."

    Groans and eyerolling and a couple of semi-silent cheers.  And sighs.

    Parent

    That was fast (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by lambert on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:31:29 PM EST
    Social Tip: Since the very word "Hillary" is a hate trigger for some, I prefer to say "Obama's Secretary of State."

    As I kept saying last year, the differences between the two were marginal, but marginal does not mean insignificant.

    In particular, we'd be a lot further on with health care; and the "progressives" wouldn't be silent.

    Parent

    Wrong... (none / 0) (#32)
    by BigElephant on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:44:16 AM EST
    If you wanted single-payer then Hillary was not your choice.  She didn't put a single payer plan on the table.  But that's a false choice, and it sounds like sour grapes on your part.  "If only you voted for my dream candidate it would be raining chocolate chip cookies, both wars would be over, and we'd have -2.9% unemployment, and not only would we have single-payer healthcare, but no one would be sick any longer".

    The fact of the matter is if you want single payer healthcare then the Democratic party is probably not the right place for you.  You should just move to a different country.

    Parent

    I think the unfortunate (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jen on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:13:55 PM EST
    and to some obvious down side of this is that the Democratic party is being further watered down and becoming the old Repub Lite. And it's no accident. One Party rule is almost here. And it's no where near what many once considered center.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:24:35 PM EST
    Democratic Bloggers are so quick to say Republicanism is dying.  If Republicans are disintegrating, then why are Democrats trying so hard to please them?....

    Yep, center right, mostly right is the order of the day.

    Parent

    The sooner the Democrat Party splits... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by lambert on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:32:53 PM EST
    ... into the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, the better, so far as I'm concerned.

    Parent
    Now it's desirable!

    This kind of cognitive dissonance is what long ago led me to the conclusion that the anti-Hillary fever had little to do with facts and everything to do with psychological projections. They had an emotional reaction to Clinton and then constructed the rationale.

    GMTA, Susie... (none / 0) (#23)
    by lambert on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:33:35 PM EST
    ... with our simultaneous comments.

    Parent
    Authoritarian followers exist... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lambert on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:27:13 PM EST
    ... among "progressives" as well as on the right. There's nothing "surprising" about BooMan's post at all.

    C'mon BTD, you know that booman adopted (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ProudTroll on Mon May 25, 2009 at 06:33:23 PM EST
    that creed against the third-way just so he could hit Hillary.  The guy's a big sexist, the liberal blogosphere is just one big good ol boys club for the most part that has no respect for women in positions of authority.  The sexism is just as prevalent on Kos and Booman's cite as there is in the establishment of the Republican Party.

    Arent you the one... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Thanin on Mon May 25, 2009 at 10:07:44 PM EST
    thats been posting all the anti choice stuff lately?

    Parent
    Doesn't surprise me these days (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by eugene on Tue May 26, 2009 at 12:18:28 AM EST
    I've been seeing Obama call plays from the Clinton '90s playbook since he got elected. Maybe I missed the signals during the campaign, but I was not expecting to see Obama build a bridge to 1996.

    I don't see how Obama can govern well by using that particular playbook. It was drawn up and is suited to a very, very different time. A time where the US was enjoying peace and prosperity, and a time where the Republican Party was still ascendant, despite 1992. None of that is true today.

    The result is that Obama, through his love of the path of least resistance, is going to fail to provide meaningful economic change to America. He probably won't have much difficulty getting reelected in 2012, but I really worry about 2014 and 2016. I don't think Obama will be able to build a lasting coalition without providing the kind of fundamental change to the way prosperity is delivered that he is so far refusing to offer.

    Obama left the left (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Lora on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    He is protecting the insurance companies.

    He is protecting the bankers and the banks.

    He is supporting warrantless spying.

    He is reinstating military tribunals.

    He is increasing our military actions in the world.

    He is bombing civilians in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

    He is keeping the executive powers that we railed against Bush for seizing.

    Obama left the left.

    He was never on the Left (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:54:36 PM EST
    to begin with, and neither was Our Lady.

    Wake up and smell the coffee: the last word always belongs to the big donors and the Pentagon - Wall St complex.

    Parent

    Unlike 1992, we now have solid COngressional (none / 0) (#31)
    by BobTinKY on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:28:19 AM EST
    majorities and  a public that has largely tuned out the GOP idiots.  We need bold leadership not Clinton's third way or triangulation, which I acknowledge was the best Democrats could do in the 90s.  I don't know if I agree that Clinton would be much more progressive if in office today, how much of his cautious, incremental approach was dictated by the politics of the time, or how much was a result of his own political views to me is unknown.

    What if LBJ had not led on civil rights and medicare when he had the opportunity, i.e., the numbers, to get these done?  LBJ should be both Obama's model to lead on single payer, restoration of civil liberties etc.  LBJ should also provide Obama with a warning about the dangers of his Afghanistan policy.  

    Say what you want about Bush, but he did deliver what his supporters wanted, to our collective detriment.  Obama seems to unwilling to embrace his supporters for fear of , well what exactly?

    Different goals... (none / 0) (#33)
    by BigElephant on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:51:33 AM EST
    I think Obama is fundamentally  a very different type of politician, based on everything I've heard from insiders.  He actually listens to the best of both sides of an argument, rather than the types of strawmen you hear on most media/blogs.  The end result is a much more reasoned approach than most Americans are used to.  People who post to places like DailyKos, TalkLeft, TPM, etc.. are so used to extremists (yes, extremists) that they're blinded by dispassionate reason.

    Parent