Peter Beinart has a piece in The New Republic on why the Democrats shouldn’t abandon the Clinton legacy. It’s interesting to note how strongly the left defended Clinton throughout the 1990s, and how quickly they’ve sold him up the river today. It’s a testament to the increased radicalization of the Democrat Party that they condemn centrism with such vitriol.
Beinart explains:
[Clinton] did not create liberalism’s crisis of faith; he inherited it. And, in 1992, he became the first candidate in two decades to offer a coherent response. His adviser Bill Galston called it the “politics of reciprocal responsibility.” Government would provide opportunity, but it would demand responsibility in return; it would not give something for nothing. This idea–manifested in Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it”–angered some liberals. But it told blue-collar whites that Democrats would distinguish between people who “played by the rules” and those who didn’t. (Clinton’s tough stance on crime sent the same message.) By the time Clinton signed welfare reform in 1996, the public’s image of government was changing. When people thought of the beneficiaries of government help, they were more likely to think of people like themselves.
Beinart is right that Clinton was undoubtedly the most successful Democrat in the last 30 years. However, Clinton’s style of management was largely an artifice – a few micro-initiatives here and there to keep the populace happy. In a crisis, Clinton’s indecision and propensity towards pandering made him unable to take decisive action. He could “feel our pain” but he was never able to do much about it, which is why al-Qaeda grew and grew throughout the 1990s while the US did little more than launch a few ineffective cruise missile strikes at empty training facilities. Clinton was fortunate that his rule came during a nice little holiday from history between the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the dawn of the Global War on Terror – and the relative peace of the 1990s was an exception rather than the rule. Had Clinton been President during less opportune times, he would not be remembered as fondly as he is now.
At the same time, Clinton’s political successes came because he could reach beyond the liberal coastal elites – something the current crop of Democrats just don’t have the first clue about. The Democrats have becoming increasingly partisan, to the point at which they’ve lost nearly all ability to speak to anyone who isn’t already part of their fold. A party doesn’t win on pessimism, and the Democrats have little but pessimism these days. Compare the Clinton’s “Man From Hope” rhetoric to the despair and drama of the Democrats today and it becomes quite clear which one wins elections and which one sends a party into defeat.
The far left hates Clinton because he had the audacity to compromise, and there is nothing that a radical hates more than compromise. The Democrats are now dominated by the far left, and if the far left gets their way, they’ll purge what remains of the Clinton legacy from their party – along with what little chances they had at political success. Clinton was hardly a great President, but compared to what the Democrats are today, he stands like a colossus.
“which is why al-Qaeda grew and grew throughout the 1990s while the US did little more than launch a few ineffective cruise missile strikes at empty training facilities.”
Al-Qaeda grew and grew throughout the 90’s because Clinton was the only one who took them seriously. His moral betters in the Congress were too busy persecuting him over a blowjob for two years, forcing him to testify about his sex life rather than pursuing Osama bin Laden. The last thing on the minds of Clinton’s current foreign policy detractors was al-Qaeda. They were too busy masturbating to the Ken Starr report.
“Had Clinton been President during less opportune times, he would not be remembered as fondly as he is now.”
I’ll give you that one.
“At the same time, Clinton’s political successes came because he could reach beyond the liberal coastal elites – something the current crop of Democrats just don’t have the first clue about.”
That’s largely because Middle Americans are suffering from his Republican-lite economic policies and see little reason to continue accommodating a Democratic Party whose standard-bearers (at least in Presidential elections) still make loving overtures to the continuity of the economic policies that are grinding them into dust. Notice how neither Al Gore or John Kerry made any headway at all in the polls until they started talking like populists. Clinton benefitted politically from having two weak Republican opponents and a third-party candidate stealing votes from the GOP. There was nothing magic about him politically. He just didn’t have to contend with intelligently-run GOP campaigns.
And as an aside, I would submit that while coastal residents are the Democratic base, the “coastal elites” are more Republican than Democrat. Just ask Francine Busby.
“The Democrats have becoming increasingly partisan, to the point at which they’ve lost nearly all ability to speak to anyone who isn’t already part of their fold.”
Did ya listen to Tom DeLay’s farewell speech? And the DEMOCRATS are increasingly partisan? Both parties are more partisan in the current era of American politics, but especially the Republicans who do everything they can to completely shut down the voices of the minority in Congress. Despite his reputation as the benchmark of Congressional liberalism, perhaps the least partisan member of the Senate today is Ted Kennedy, who time after time is joining Republicans to craft compromise legislation only to get rolled every time by hyperpartisan Republicans.
“The Democrats are now dominated by the far left, and if the far left gets their way, they’ll purge what remains of the Clinton legacy from their party – along with what little chances they had at political success.”
The Democrats are running centrist/conservative candidates throughout the country (Bob Casey, Harold Ford, Brad Ellsworth, Ken Lucas, Heath Shuler) this cycle just as they did last cycle (Erskine Bowles, Tony Knowles, Brad Carson). Anyone whining about the party currently dominated by triangulator extraordinaire Hillary Clinton being “too far left” could moderate the party’s delegation by electing some of these candidates. But I’m guessing you are rooting for the defeat of every one of these Democrats, meaning you’re not a very credible critic. And just as was done with Harry Reid after 2004, the goalposts will be moved to redefine “scary liberal” as whatever Karl Rove wants it to be if the Democrats are stupid enough to take GOP advice and continue their journey into the Republican-lite wilderness.
Which is a patently idiotic argument, unless one wishes to argue that the Joint Chiefs were part of Clinton’s legal defense team. If Clinton was so inept that he couldn’t handle the results of his own act of perjury and the office of the Presidency, he should have stepped down.
Yes, because we all know how successful those two were….
Of course, since apparently San Diego now represents both coasts rather than say, New York and Los Angeles. That’s such a transparently silly argument it defies belief.
And I’m Catherine the Great…
Oh well, perhaps when the “netroots” lead the party into its third consecutive electoral defeat, we’ll get a sane opposition party…
“Which is a patently idiotic argument, unless one wishes to argue that the Joint Chiefs were part of Clinton’s legal defense team. If Clinton was so inept that he couldn’t handle the results of his own act of perjury and the office of the Presidency, he should have stepped down.”
Clinton deserves some scolding about his inability to reign in al-Qaeda, but he was the only one even paying attention to al-Qaeda in the 1990’s. The Republicans certainly didn’t….and they continued not paying attention to them right up until 9 a.m. on September 11, 2001 (and apparently even awhile beyond that since Bush and Cheney were obsessively goading Richard Clarke to make a 9/11-Iraq connection no matter how convincing the evidence was that al-Qaeda was responsible.
“Yes, because we all know how successful those two were….”
Al Gore was way behind in the polls when he was running on Clinton coattails. He won the popular vote (I consider that successful) with an 11th hour populist appeal. John Kerry was similarly way behind before ramping up his populism. This is exactly the reason why I’m so hopeful that the Republicans run on the great economy of 2006 this November. They’ll get smashed by the 75% of Americans not benefitting from that great economy.
“Of course, since apparently San Diego now represents both coasts rather than say, New York and Los Angeles. That’s such a transparently silly argument it defies belief.”
Congressional districts with the highest per capita income are heavily Republican and Congressional districts with the lowest are heavily Democrat. The most Democratic districts on the coasts are in the south Bronx, Harlem, Baltimore, west Philly, and the barrios and gangbanger wastelands in the city of Los Angeles. Those smug minimum-wage elites and their fancy food stamps! How about the most Republican districts on the coasts? They’re the mansions of Newport Beach on “the OC” and the federal disaster relief parasites along Myrtle Beach and the Outer Banks of the Carolinas.
“Oh well, perhaps when the “netroots†lead the party into its third consecutive electoral defeat, we’ll get a sane opposition party…”
So are you gonna work to ensure the election of Bob Casey, Harold Ford, Brad Ellsworth, Heath Shuler, Ken Lucas and other centrist Democrats that represent your kind of opposition party? If not, then your strategy reeks of opportunism and the intentional sabotage of opposition who shamelessly waves its finger in the wind a la Hillary, humping the majority’s leg at every turn rather than stand up for its convictions.
It was the Republican Congress who commissioned the Hart-Rudman Commission. It was Bill Clinton who set up the “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement – the wall that directly led to 9/11.
And the idea that Richard Clarke was “goaded” into an Iraq connection is pure BS. If anything, Iraq would have been one of the top candidates for culpability on 9/11 along with al-Qaeda. Clarke himself had believed that there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda and had speculated that bin Laden would have escaped to Baghdad in 1998 had he not ended up as a guest of the Taliban.
Gore never ran on Clinton’s coattails, and had he done so, it’s likely he would never have had to worry about Florida. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades. Gore lost the White House because he decided to swing left after the convention. His “people versus the powerful” rhetoric was a political loser.
Only in your little world. Kerry’s attempts to slam Bush on the economy didn’t give him any traction.
Except when it comes to voting behavior, people vote based on their personal pocketbook issues. The US economy is in fine shape, and if the Democrats think they can win based on the same economic populist playbook they keep losing on, fine, let them lose.
I call BS on that one. Are you arguing that Manhattan is heavily Republican? Silicon Valley is heavily Republican? That argument doesn’t even remotely fly.
The correlation with income and Republican voting habits breaks down when you get to the top 2%, in which case those people are so rich they don’t give a damn how much they’re taxed.
Of course not, because if the Democrats get into power it would be a disaster for ths country on every level. I’ll vote for Democrats like Stephanie Herseth when there’s little chance of the most irresponsible party in American history taking power – but not when our soldiers lives are on the line and the future of three nations hangs in the balance on what we do in the next few years.
“And the idea that Richard Clarke was “goaded†into an Iraq connection is pure BS. If anything, Iraq would have been one of the top candidates for culpability on 9/11 along with al-Qaeda. Clarke himself had believed that there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda and had speculated that bin Laden would have escaped to Baghdad in 1998 had he not ended up as a guest of the Taliban.”
Sounds like you’re calling Clarke a liar. His account of the events of 9/11, and the administration’s opportunistic response, directly contradicts yours.
“His “people versus the powerful†rhetoric was a political loser.”
Which seems strange considering the Republicans were predicting a 350-electoral vote landslide for Bush the week before the election, only to lose the popular vote and 267 electoral votes to the “political loser”.
“Kerry’s attempts to slam Bush on the economy didn’t give him any traction.”
Voters who based their decision on the economy went for Kerry by a 3-1 margin. That’s hardly insignificant.
“people vote based on their personal pocketbook issues. The US economy is in fine shape, and if the Democrats think they can win based on the same economic populist playbook they keep losing on, fine, let them lose.”
Sixty percent of Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the economy and 70% think the country is heading in the wrong direction. If do people vote their “personal pocketbook” as you say, a nation full of Americans losing their health care and pensions amidst a half-decade of stagnant wage growth and soaring energy costs, you guys are in deep trouble. But again, I beg you–BEG YOU!–to cite corporate boardroom spreadsheet statistics of how great the economy is amidst every report of further layoffs and factory closings. It’s a winner!
“Are you arguing that Manhattan is heavily Republican? Silicon Valley is heavily Republican?”
Both are Democratic, but the real Democratic strongholds of coastal areas are impoverished working-class cities that hardly qualify as “elite”. And you’re stuck in 1999 referring to the extravagant wealth of the Silicon Valley. The vast majority of people there are barely keeping their head above water financially with the high cost of living.
“The correlation with income and Republican voting habits breaks down when you get to the top 2%, in which case those people are so rich they don’t give a damn how much they’re taxed.”
Most of the top 2% are Jewish…and they vote Democrat for other reasons than tax rates.
“there’s little chance of the most irresponsible party in American history taking power”
Uh-huh. Just like the Democrats of the 1930’s would have been “the most irresponsible party in American history” if you had been alive then….and the 1940’s…and the 1960’s, etc., etc., etc. Considering the Democratic Party of today is infinitely further right than the Republicans of the 1970’s, your statement is particularly assinine. And judging by the growing margins of party preference in generic Congressional election polls (the last I saw the Dems led by 20 points), it appears your hyperbolic assessment is not shared by a majority of Americans.
His own words are noted in the 9/11 Commission Report.
I can’t think of any Republicans who predicted such a thing. The 2004 race came out quite close to the way it had been predicted. Every major poll showed either a race in the MOE or a Bush win. The 2000 race was never to have been a Bush blowout – again, the polls showed a close race. Your attempts to rewrite history just won’t fly.
Which was only 4% of voters. And that was in a year when the economic situation was much worse than it is now. The idea that the Democrats can once again trot out their line about “the worst economy since Hoover” won’t fly now any better than it did then.
Except your vision of America has nothing to do with the reality of peoples lives in this country. Every year the Democrats keep up their campaign of fear, and it hasn’t gotten them anywhere since 2000. It didn’t work when we were in recession in 2002, and it won’t work now that the economy is doing much better.
You must not know anyone in Silicon Valley. Costs of living may be outrageous, but salaries are equally outrageous. The idea that Silicon Valley is now some hotbed of poverty shows just how disconnected from reality you are.
Disproportionate to the general population, yes. A majority, not hardly.
The Democratic Party didn’t truly go off the deep end until the 1960s. The Scoop Jackson/Harry Truman/JFK wing of the Democratic Party is now dead, and the Democrats are forever diminished because of it.
Democrats always lead in generic ballots. It’s when it comes to winning elections that the Democrats never seem to do so well – at least not since the time when Clinton was President.
“The 2000 race was never to have been a Bush blowout – again, the polls showed a close race. Your attempts to rewrite history just won’t fly.”
You must have been sleeping throughout the final week of the 2000 campaign. Karl Rove’s mug graced every TV screen in America predicting a 350-vote electoral landslide with Bush winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida, along with nearly every other battleground state of the time. Most pollsters also seemed (Rasmussen, Gallup) were also predicting a Bush blowout of near double-digit proportion. Zogby was laughed off for predicting a tick-tight race, but was closer to right than anyone else.
“Which was only 4% of voters.”
CBS’ exit polls suggested the economy was the top issue for 20% of American voters in 2004. Perhaps there’s some margin of difference about the specifics poll to poll, but I challenge you to link me to a single exit poll indicating that the economy was the top concern of only 4% of voters in the last election.
“The idea that Silicon Valley is now some hotbed of poverty shows just how disconnected from reality you are.”
Nobody said that. But there’s a higher percentage of people with large volumes of disposable income elsewhere in the country (think Brian Bilbray and Darrell Issa’s backyard) than in Silicon Valley.
“The Democratic Party didn’t truly go off the deep end until the 1960s.”
Uh-huh. I’m sure you wouldn’t have railed just as ferociously against FDR’s New Deal, Truman’s deep ties to organized labor, or JFK’s pursuit of national health care as representative of the Democrats “going off the deep end”. The Democratic Party today is well to the right of where it was then, but with each lurch to the right the party takes, the more that conservatives screech about the party never being more liberal.
“Democrats always lead in generic ballots. It’s when it comes to winning elections that the Democrats never seem to do so well – at least not since the time when Clinton was President.”
If the Dems’ generic lead was 5-7 points as it was in 2002 and 2004, I’d agree with you, but the average margin of Democratic lead is now in double digits, running as high as 20 points in the most recent poll. The Dems can still blow it over immigration, or by looking like hopelessly lost puppies as they have thus far this year, but at least of now, they are poised to win back the House. David Brooks recently reported conversations with entrenched Republican Congressmen whose internal polls showed them leading with much slimmer margins that they’re used to. The thirst for a change of course is real, and it’s widespread.
I rather doubt anyone bought that. Bush was ahead, but the DUI story quickly made it a nail-biter.
The point still being that by all rights it should never have been close – Gore should have trounced Bush based on the numbers, but didn’t because he ran away from the Clinton legacy and embraced the leftist populism that has killed Democratic candidates for decades now.
Why you dirty liar, only 4% said their top issue was… education… crap, I was reading the wrong line of the poll.
Still, only 20% of the electorate voted based on economics – and that’s when Kerry was talking about a “jobless recovery”. The idea that economic issues will kill the Republicans when they didn’t in 2004 doesn’t make a great deal of sense – it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the economic situation has improved more than a little since then.
I’d guess the Bay Area is hardly lacking in disposable income, given the number of very expensive foreign cars that seem to be omnipresent there. Living expenses are obscene there, but there seems to be a paucity of paupers forced onto the streets because their Google IPO shares couldn’t pay the rent.
Except Kennedy slashed taxes, Truman was an avowed anti-Communist, and FDR did more to erode civil liberties in a time of war than anything Bush could have done. The argument that today’s Democrats are to the right of their forefathers just isn’t true. JFK would be a Republican by today’s standards.
The Democrats cannot be trusted on this war, it’s as simple as that. Any party that would willingly hand al-Qaeda their greatest victory ever on a silver platter by cutting and running from Iraq is too irresponsible and short-sided to lead. The Democratic Party will put their pissant anti-Bush monomania ahead of their country, and that is simply dangerous. Quite frankly, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media are more dangerous to our victory in this war than even al-Qaeda is, and that should give the Democrats pause were they sane enough to realize it.
I doubt it. The Republicans only saving grace right now is that they are running against a party controlled by the fringe, possessed of a singular hatred of one man, and terminally disconnected from the mainstream of American life. Were they running against any other party they’d be creamed, but against the Democrats they have a significant chance of stemming their losses in the House and even picking up some seats in the Senate.
“Except Kennedy slashed taxes”
Yeah….to 70%.
“JFK would be a Republican by today’s standards.”
I’ll make a deal with you. If you help re-create the JFK era where 44% of the American workforce was unionized, the top tax rate was 70%, and where an aggressive push towards national health care was looming, I’ll agree with you that JFK was really a Republican.
“Quite frankly, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media are more dangerous to our victory in this war than even al-Qaeda is, and that should give the Democrats pause were they sane enough to realize it.”
Ann Coulter thanks you. Finally, somebody said something delusional enough to take the heat off of her idiotic firebrand comments.
“The Republicans only saving grace right now is that they are running against a party controlled by the fringe, possessed of a singular hatred of one man, and terminally disconnected from the mainstream of American life.”
A party controlled by “the fringe” who Americans prefer on nearly every issue (now, they’re only trailing by like five points on security so the GOP is even losing its edge there). At least for now, you’re losing the war on overheated hyperbolic rhetoric…..and the “singular hatred of one man” is shared by two-thirds of Americans.
“but against the Democrats they have a significant chance of stemming their losses in the House and even picking up some seats in the Senate.”
I won’t dispute the former. I suspect the GOP will do okay in the House races in Middle America because the Dems are stupidly stepping into the Bush-McCain trap over immigration. But do you really believe the GOP is going to GAIN Senate seats when the five seats rated the most vulnerable are all held by Republicans? Where are their gains gonna come from? Maryland? Vermont? No, wait, I know, Florida!