Only Politicians

I read Matt Bai's article on how we can understand the current Democratic primary as a referendum on Bill Clinton's tenure in office and Ed Kilgore's remarks on it as well. On one level, I'm not entirely sure this is true. Paul Krugman's complaints about Barack Obama amount to accusing him of being unduly Clintonian, whereas he sees the actual Clinton in the race as possessed of a bold, populist fighting spirit. On the other hand, given that Bill Clinton was in office very recently and that his wife is the front-runner in this race and she's running primarily on her experience as a first lady, it's natural for thoughts on the Clinton administration to enter into things.

It struck me contemplating this that I don't have any particularly strong feelings about the Clinton administration.

It seems to me that people who write about politics for a living are supposed to decide that he was either the Great Innovator Who Saves Democrats From the Hippies or else the Evil Destroyer Who Ruined Everything. In truth, he was a politician. Like all politician, his views on the merits of things drifted around over time and he responded a lot to the prevailing political pressures. And that's not to say he was a Soulless Calculating Flip-Flopper. Rather, he was a politician and that's how politicians do.

So anyways, I do actually see the Democratic primary through that lens. I'm not sure how the future will unfold for American public policy, but if a Democrat wins the primary difference-maker will be the environment in which he or she operates -- the state of public opinion, the state of the congress, the strength of progressive civil society groups, etc. The structure of the campaign tends to obscure that, but that's how it is. Any of these people would happily become much more conservative in office than the game they're talking now if they thought that was the savvy move, and any of them would shift left as well. It still matters who wins, of course, but it's only one of a million things that matter.

Comments

It could also be a referendum on the Democrats who lost Congress for most of 1994 - 2006, but since that's a period of history we've already forgotten, what was I saying?

Any way, it was the sort of question I asked myself as I watched my father march with MLK Jr. into Mexico City for the 1936 Olympics. The experience taught me a great deal.

Posted by El Cid | December 21, 2007 12:22 PM

"Paul Krugman's complaints about Barack Obama amount to accusing him of being unduly Clintonian, whereas he sees the actual Clinton in the race as possessed of a bold, populist fighting spirit."

Of course, Krugman has actually basically endorsed Edwards, not Clinton.

But you know that already, don't you, Matthew?

No wonder you find writing about the Democratic nomination race so stressful. If you're trying to discuss alternate realities, it's hard to keep all the stories straight in your head. See Mitt Romney's difficulties over the past 48 hours for another example of this.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 12:29 PM

he was either the Great Innovator Who Saves Democrats From the Hippies or else the Evil Destroyer Who Ruined Everything. In truth, he was a politician.

He was a politician of his time. The Republican media machine now has competition, of a sort. The conservative certainties of that time have all been put into play, only to fail miserably. I don't think that Clinton (either of them) is too stupid to understand that a Democratic administration beginning in 2009 will have far greater advantages than one beginning in 1993.

That said, I've always viewed them as technocrats. Cutting their political teeth in Arkansas as Democrats in the last quarter of the 20th century can only have made them very, very cynical about and even grossly condescending to the kind of people who make up their present base.

Their hearts aren't in the right place, I suspect. So what? They will be useful.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 21, 2007 12:30 PM

I've gotta say that the bit of trying to convince his readers that Krugman is a Clinton supporter is one of the few times I've seen Matthew out and out lie to his readers.

It may help his argument, but it's not, like, true.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 12:44 PM

I'm starting to feel like such a suck-up in my comments here but this post should really be required reading for political commentators.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 21, 2007 12:44 PM

"That's how politicians do." This phrasing brought to you by "The Wire."

Posted by bobbo | December 21, 2007 12:46 PM

Do you think if we raised a fund or something we could persuade Petey to start his own blog, so he could shut the f*ck up around here and quit trying to act like he's some sort of Yglesias co-blogger?

Posted by Realish | December 21, 2007 12:48 PM

"Do you think if we raised a fund or something we could persuade Petey to start his own blog"

Feel free to raise funds. I won't take any PAC or lobbyist money, however.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 12:52 PM

quit trying to act like he's some sort of Yglesias co-blogger?

Yeah! That's my job!
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 21, 2007 12:57 PM

I've gotta say that the bit of trying to convince his readers that Krugman is a Clinton supporter is one of the few times I've seen Matthew out and out lie to his readers.

The pressure is getting to you. Take the dog for a walk.

Posted by otto | December 21, 2007 12:58 PM

Only Clinton supporters are saying that the Dem primary is going to be a referendum on the Clinton administration. Note that this isn't a statement of fact or objective interpretation: it is a piece of persuasion disguised as fact or objective interpretation. For obviously the majority of Dems would say that the Clinton Presidency was, on the whole, not so bad, and certainly better than the Bushies. So if what you want is a president who is not so bad, and certainly better than the Bushies, then all you have to do is vote Clinton again. Q.E.D. By calling the primary a referendum, all you're doing is making that argument in disguised form.

But past results are no guarantee of future performance. Electing Hillary will not cause the clock to turn back to 1992. Bill Clinton was a bandaid on a country that was only bleeding lightly, and it did the job. Putting in Hillary would be like applying another bandaid - but this time on a severed limb. Yes, a bandaid is better than nothing, but not much better. W has so screwed up this country that Clintonesque 'barely good enough' governance just won't do it anymore.

Posted by lampwick | December 21, 2007 1:01 PM

"I won't take any PAC or lobbyist money, however."

Just from the trial lawyers, right... just kidding...

""That's how politicians do." This phrasing brought to you by "The Wire.""

And then there's "So, anyways...", brought to you from the fifth grade...

Posted by Rihilism | December 21, 2007 1:01 PM

Of course you don't have strong feelings about the Clinton administration, because the Clinton administration hardly did anything, apart from the 1993 tax increase that helped usher in the Republican Congress in the 1994 election and the so-called welfare reform. And that camel's nose under the tent leading to the repeal of habeas corpus, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, thanks Chuck Schumer. After that, Clinton was essentially rendered impotent by the constant harassment over Whitewater and all the other substance-less scandals. At the end of his administration he engaged in a last-minute flurry of progressive administrative regulation, but virtually all of it, e.g. ergonomic regulation under OSHA, was peeled back by the Bush administration.

Posted by gordonminor | December 21, 2007 1:06 PM

"The pressure is getting to you. Take the dog for a walk."

You think what Matthew was saying about Krugman being in the Clinton camp rather than the Edwards camp was true? Or do you think Matthew was honestly mistaken?

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 1:10 PM

You think what Matthew was saying about Krugman being in the Clinton camp rather than the Edwards camp was true?

Has Krugman made an actual endorsement? Or if not, what's he said that's made it clear he's an Edwards supporter? My impression has been that he's been using his column to try to push all three candidates toward his preferred policy positions and message.

Real question, not rhetorical.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 21, 2007 1:18 PM

Gordonminor-

What you say is all pretty much true. However, on the administrative, as opposed to policy-making, side the Clinton administration looks a lot better. There's no question that the people appointed to run major federal agencies were almost all highly qualified, and the general level of competence and professionalism was high.

(This is actually the main factor that makes me a lukewarm HRC supporter -- I think she would appoint high-quality (not necessarily progressive) people to federal posts and do a lot to improve the caliber of the bureaucracy. Which ain't a small thing, in my book.)

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 21, 2007 1:24 PM

In my opinion, Bill Clinton did more bad than good: NAFTA, Don't Ask/Don't Tell, Welfare Reform, DMCA, Desert Fox, the pardons.

The Brady Bill, Earned Income Tax Credits, and 1993 Budget Act were nice, but in comparison, drops in a bucket.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 21, 2007 1:24 PM

"Has Krugman made an actual endorsement?"

No. I believe he's not permitted.

"Or if not, what's he said that's made it clear he's an Edwards supporter? ... Real question, not rhetorical."

Depends on what you mean by "clear". I think there's a level of evidence that Krugman is supporting Edwards over Clinton that would hold up in a civil trial, but not in a criminal trial.

Start with columns like this, move on to his other columns of the past few weeks, and finally get to some of the interviews he's done in the past few weeks.

There's been a clear pattern of his definitively pushing Edwards over Clinton.

But as said, one could certainly create reasonable doubt, if one were determined to.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 1:45 PM

given that Bill Clinton was in office very recently and that his wife is the front-runner in this race and she's running primarily on her experience as a first lady

This will never cease to amaze me. HRC is running _primarily_ on her experience as a first lady. And this qualifies her to be president? In what way? I am continually stupified by this. To me, this is the height of absurdity. I didn't even dislike Hillary. I felt pity for her back in 1997-99, what with the right-wing smear machine and her husband cheating on her for all the world to see. But then she thinks that being married to the president makes her qualified to be president? This is just surreal to me. Not only have we gone downt the rabbit hole, we're through it.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | December 21, 2007 2:09 PM

You think what Matthew was saying about Krugman being in the Clinton camp rather than the Edwards camp was true? Or do you think Matthew was honestly mistaken?

MY didn't say anything about Krugman being in anyone's camp, just that Krugman compares Clinton favourably in boldness and populism to Obama.

And here - for example - is Krugman comparing Obama unfavourably to both Edwards AND Clinton on healthcare:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html

And anyway, even if Matt had posted "Krugman loves Clinton not Edwards so there", on a better day you'd have had a calmer or funner response than today's "out-and-out liar".

So yes, take that dog for a walk.

Posted by otto | December 21, 2007 2:22 PM

"on a better day you'd have had a calmer or funner response"

Come back in two weeks if you're looking for a lighter tone. Stuff is at stake at the moment.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 2:52 PM

Come back in two weeks if you're looking for a lighter tone. Stuff is at stake at the moment.

The Internet is serious business!

Posted by Senescent | December 21, 2007 3:19 PM

Mitch, haven't there been a number of wives who end up finishing their dead husbands term in Congress and also being re-elected in there own right. Here in Missouri, we have had a couple of those. What experience did their role of wife bring in those appointments--what made the respective governors of those states decide to appoint those wives? Was it all political? Why do we ignore those facts when discussing Hillary Clinton?

First lady? Yeah I think that's experience.

I'm voting for Clinton, Obama or Edwards--doesn't matter to me which one get the nom.

Posted by jennifer | December 21, 2007 3:51 PM

"The Internet is serious business!"

I believe in the internet.

If it weren't for the internet, Senator Clinton would have this nomination locked up.

The internet is the samizdat for taking back control of the Party.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 4:39 PM

given that Bill Clinton was in office very recently and that his wife is the front-runner in this race and she's running primarily on her experience as a first lady

I haven't really heard her campaign say that, but if it fits in with your idea that this is a referendum on the Clinton presidency I guess it fits the narrative. 6 or 7 experience in the US Senate just doesn't count for as much as it used to, I guess.

It seems kind of disingenuous to ignore Mrs Clinton's Senate career when discussing her except for when it comes to her Iraq vote when we're constantly reminded of the fact.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | December 21, 2007 5:09 PM

I'm not sure how the future will unfold for American public policy, but if a Democrat wins the primary difference-maker will be the environment in which he or she operates -- the state of public opinion, the state of the congress, the strength of progressive civil society groups, etc.

Marc Ambinder is arguing (quoting Mark Penn) that the general election will be about the same no matter who the nominee is. Now you're saying the same about the administration.

I don't buy it. The nominee and the President have the ability to affect the environment and the discourse. They don't control it, of course. The election will be an all-out political war, and the administration will have to deal with whatever Congress we have and whatever narrative the media creates.

But the whole point is to choose someone who can exert leadership to move public opinion and the Congress in the direction he or she is pointing. The president can choose how to respond to the political environment, and the choice matters. The president has a huge bully pulpit to speak to Americans about policy, and the ability to use that pulpit matters.

Presidents aren't just captives to the world around them. They get to lead.

Posted by Rachel Q | December 21, 2007 5:29 PM