Clintonism Without Clinton -- It's Deja Vu All Over Again

In the dog days of summer, I and my dogs take comfort in the wisdom of Yogi Berra. As that great Yankee catcher and philosopher said, "It's deja vu all over again." That's just how I feel seeing the photos and reading the reports of Barack Obama's economic gathering this week. It's as if I am rerunning a movie of the 1992 Clinton economic summit in Litlte Rock. There are Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Bob Reich, Laura Tyson, corporate statemen like Warren Buffet, Republicans like Paul Volker and Paul O'Neill, a couple of token labor leaders and few if any progressive economists or activists huddling with our Democratic candidate to discuss economic hard times. And in the White House we have another President Bush who is passing along a record deficit. "White House Predicts Bush will Leave $482 Billion Deficit" reads the NY Times headline. Even if Obama wins, he will feel immense pressure to be fiscally responsible, tackle the deficit and put universal health care, economic regulation or labor law reform on hold or postpone it altogether. Just like Bill Clinton.

It feels like Clintonism Without Clinton.

Reading the profile of Obama's political rise in Chicago, I found myself saying to friends that it reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton's career, although in an urban context.

Other political observers are also saying how much Barack Obama reminds them of Bill Clinton. Both are smart, articulate, give good speeches, and display political ability mixed with ambition and pragmatism. Maybe Barack is channeling Bill, and he doesn't need to talk to him (as I advised in a previous column). And maybe it's just plain weird (an unfair) that Hillary Clinton was defeated by a younger version of her own husband.

It just doesn't matter, as Bill Murray chanted. Obama is the Democratic candidate and I want him to win -- but let's also talk about what to do after victory is won. Remember the Robert Redford character in The Candidate who wins his Senate race, asking forlornly, "What do I do now.?' There are answers.

I have expressed myself already that to win the election Obama needs to sharpen his economic message and deepen his economic agenda, and there is no need to repeat the obvious. However, I strongly advise that progressive groups should be planning for victory, as well as working hard to elect Obama. It is often during Transition periods between administrations -- in late November and during December -- that key decisions are made about personnel and policy, usually out of the view of the media and after public interest in the campaign has greatly diminished. This was certainly the case in Clinton's first term, and even in Bush's when he decided to bring in Don Rumsfeld to counter the influence of the more centrist Colin Powell.

I ran the Labor section of the Transition for the first Clinton term and saw first hand how unprepared the labor movement was for winning and then governing. They had no serious candidates for key positions in a Democratic administration -- even for Labor Secretary (and they got someone who didn't believe strongly in labor unions!) -- and no forward looking agenda for economic reform. Other progressive and public interest groups were just as bad. Ralph Nader had all but endorsed kooky Jerry Brown in the primary and spent most of his time personally attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton. He then behaved badly in his meetings with new White House staff, and gave no thought to lobbying for the appointment of progressives in the administration. As a result, the influence of the labor movement and progressive groups both on the inside and the outside of the Clinton administration was marginal at best. There is a lesson here for the major labor unions like SEIU and AFSCME that are going to go all out with their members and their treasuries to elect Barack Obama, and for groups such as Public Citizen, Moveon.Org and others, especially environmental organizations.

Yes, by all means, do everything you can to elect Obama and a Democratic Congress -- but devote some staff time and strategic thinking to planning for after the victory. Personnel determines policy more than campaign speeches and position papers,so have a list ready on November 5 of qualified individuals who might be considered seriously for top positions in government and for whom you will lobby the Obama administration to appoint. For example, at least one economist on the Council of Economic Advisors should be a labor economist; progressive economists should be appointed not only to the Labor Dept, but more importantly, to the Treasury Dept and to the Office of the US Trade Representative; pro-consumer and labor experts should be appointed to leadership positions on all regulatory bodies. And have a reform agenda of executive decisions and priority legislation in hand. Line up sponsors and advocates in the Senate and House, and start pushing the agenda with the White House the day after the Inauguration. To neglect these tasks and fail to think strategically about winning makes all the hard work in the fall to win the election only feel hollow later.

After all, as the candidate himself said, "We are the ones we have been waiting for." Not the one, but the ones.

Comments

[mick3]

The writer seems to believe that the Clinton way was a good thing. But both Clintons are devoted members of the self-titled Democratic Leadership Council, which was founded to shift the Democratic Party from representing workers and women to representing corporate rule over all. Clinton's pushing NAFTA through was just the most obvious example of what a true DLCer will do for corporate America.

Obama has declined to join the DLC, a good sign only if overlooking his abrupt turn to the right after essentially securing the nomination. He has sounded like a DLCer ever since. Also, I don't expect to hear much about women's and girls' rights from Obama, now courting the religious right so energetically. Something like allowing females the basic human right to control one's own body is considered anathema to religiosos. A woman's life, versus the "holy" stray sperm. Possibly, the government should step in and outlaw male masturbation while they're at it. All those godlike (because male) sperm gone to utter waste, and the planet so needing more people. Not.

[nikto]

When you faithfully add up the dollar$ and cents of the CLINTON Policies,
Bill Clinton was a Conservative-leaner who gave lip service and
pennies to the Left, and Trillion$ to Korporate, Inc.

The one sure major "Gem" he did accomplish was the deficit reduction/balanced budget,
but that sure was undone by Bu$hCo lickedy-split, wasn't it?

Hopefully, Obama will at least be a "Liberal-leaner"
to the degree that Clinton was the opposite.

Call it Liberal, call it Progressive,
but "it" is needed right now,
like Antivenin,
in America.

[hosshoss777]

Sure, we all want the progressive ideals magically enacted. The Health Care, the Labor equity, safe retirement, level Playing field, even handed justice. Good Government, Good roads, bridges, warm houses in winter, Fair fair fair, everything fair. So why does this always break down? Why is reality exactly the opposite? Why don't all people everywhere wish to pay their share according to their ability to pay so as to help those less fortunate? Seriously, what's wrong with this picture? Simply put, progressives need to make a better case for their agenda. Need to be more convincing as to why and how before they hope to steal from Peter to give to Paul. Peter has a problem with it.

[jakitchen]

Trolls out in Droves

[jakitchen]

The Trolls are out in Droves today.

[poomplet]

OH....MY...GOD!!!

Being fiscally responsible? Tackling the deficit?

WTF is THAT? How DARE anyone expect those traits in the next president!

[sclucie]

Derek: I agree that appointments are critical - and the recent press about the Justice department is testament to that, but I don't want another Clinton presidency. We didn't get universal health care - or any health care - as over 50 million Americans will attest. Did you read Hillary's apology letter to Moynihan? The one where she said that if she had been able to negotiate, 47 million Americans might have had care? We're not going to have another dot.com economy. That was a 90's thing. It was nice until our retirement funds were cut in half. If some decent reporters remain in the press corps, hopefully we will not have another Rwanda (and another Dafur), where we sit and watch as mass graves pile up "Once Again." We won't be placating labor - while the Secretary of Commerce is arranging for manufacturing jobs to be shipped to China (See Ron Brown and Bernard Scwartz, 2004). And I'm pretty sure we won't have another Monica. I do not want another Clinton presidency. I want something better.

[drddd]

NONSENSE. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS HARD TO ESTABLISH. BY THE END OF THE 1994 ELECTIONS, CLINTON REVERTED HIS POLICY AND HEALTH CARE BECAME AFFORDABLE ONCE AGAIN

[DakotaMinnesota]

Yep, the elite Republicans start a war, make piles of money for themselves, and make sure to lay waste the economy so that the inevitable Democratic successor has no choice but to abandon hopes of making any progress to fix the problems like maids cleaning up after one of their high society orgies.

It seems to be an unbeatable system.

[ESerafina42]

Well, Lord knows anything wrong that Obama does CAN'T be HIS fault, seeing that he's God, and even when he helps to finish shredding the Constitution (as with his FISA vote), the same people who were excoriating the spineless Democrats the day before are suddenly tying themselves in knots to explain why it's right when HE does the same thing.

And surely, Derek, you must be wrong. Bill and Hillary Clinton are evil. Everything they did was in mad pursuit of naked power. Obama is GOOOOOOOD. He's NOTHING like those bad old Clintons. (snark, in case you can't tell)

I will vote for him, but only as the lesser of two evils.

[NoSpinTruthZone]

The aol poll shows McCain 70% to Obama's 30%. I wouldn't be planning any post victory parties just yet.

The moderate voters have not been assuaged.

This should be wake up call, however as I've seen before, it's doubtful anyone will take the hint.

The pattern I've seen with the liberals is that it appears to be much easier for them to blame the other guy for Obama losing then to actually do something constructive about it when there's still ample opportunity.

Instead of reaching out to others the libs have instead maintained their unrealistic egocentric view sans reality .

[Heidfeld]

Ha! First people compared Obama to JFK... and now that we realize he couldn't tie JFK's shoes, they are trying to compare him to Clinton. Well, he still has a long way to go before he could even enter the same league as Bill.

Why should Obama have to give up Universal Healthcare? 2008 is very different to 1992. Back then, the uninformed american public didn't even realize it was in their own best interests. Bill and Hillary were, as usual, visionaries in trying to do what they did at the time. Now, 16 years later, the public is finally in favor of it, and overwhelmingly so. So why can't Obama get it done? Only because he doesn't have the political skill, clout, and tenacity of a Clinton.

If Bill's budget were carried forward by Bush, we would be debt free by 2010. That's right, ZERO national debt. Even with the economic slowdown in the early part of the decade, we would still be well on our way to having paid down the debt completely. And that would solve so many of our problems, and free up so much money for important things like healthcare.

All these new wave Clinton bashers only expose their ignorance when they attack him. And those that went against his wife, like those 1992 americans, don't even realize what is in their own best interests.

I'm still for Hill. She is the ONLY one who can get us back on track.

[CynthiaCr]

Uhmm, Hillary flubbed the health care thingie bigtime when she was co-president.

[Heidfeld]

Ummm, can you read?

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that public support for healthcare reform in 1992 was nowhere near what it is now? Do you understand that? Were you one of those people who didn't get it at the time?

[tuttlemsm]

The ONLY one? Hillary Clinton is the single, only one in a country of 303,111,027 people that could possibly get us "back on track"?

Golly. And they say Obama's people are messianic.

[Heidfeld]

The only one of the candidates realistically put forth (Obama, McCain, and Hillary).

[Heidfeld]

Yeah... but if you want to be a smart ass about it... you should probably adjust your number to reflect all those millions of people who actually aren't eligbile to become President. Like former presidents, or... umm... anyone under 35...

[NoSpinTruthZone]

I agree completely!!

Here's to Clinton in 2012!!

I made a donation this time, and I'll make another one then.

[Rick33]

Ummm.

If "a Clinton" really had so much more political skill, clout, and tenacity than Obama you'd think one would be in the race right now.

I really don't understand your logic here. You seem to be saying that if Bush had stuck to Clinton's budget, we'd be debt free in two years. Fair enough, though impossible to prove. Then you point out this would free up money for healthcare. Also fair enough, though there are more people who disagree with you on its practicality than you might think (how do you find a Canadian doctor? Go to the States.)

But here's where your argument gets downright bizarre. You seem to be blaming Obama for the Bush presidency. Electing another Clinton won't make the Bush years go away, no matter how much we all want them to. We'll still be stuck inbetween a two front war and a crippling national debt. In those conditions, its tough to see how any politician could adopt a hugely expensive government task like universal healthcare without cleaning house first. Put it this way: Obama is the country's best bet to right our ship and reverse course away from the Bush-Cheney doctrine which got us here in the first place. After that's been done THEN we'll have to opportunity to advance more progressive concerns.

[Heidfeld]

Yes, both Clintons (and in this case Hillary) have more political skill, clout and tenacity than Obama... but Obama is better at giving fancy speeches filled with lies and empty rhetoric. I guess it was Clinton's fault that she didn't realise the democratic party (and particularly the progressive arm of it) had so many gulible people in it.

That said, his strenghts (being a salesman) will not help him once he is in office... whereas Hillary strenghts would be most effective in precisely that place, the oval office.

Also, I did not blame Obama in any way for the Bush presidency. No, I simply stated the fact that he is not up to the task of cleaning up the mess that Bush left behind.... while Hillary is.

[Bulbul]

I second that.

[mheister]

Derek -

Um, no. Barack Obama is moving people in a way Bill Clinton could only dream of. And Obama's agenda is far broader than Clinton's was.

[drddd]

NONSENSE, OBAMA IS AS INEXPERIENCED AS JIMMY CARTER WHEN IT COMES TO THE ECONOMY. CLINTON, HOWEVER, KEPT IT AFLOAT THROUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY

[aofh]

If progressives have anyone in mind, the time to put them forward is now so that some kind of buzz can be generated about them and their ideas propagated and they are on the radar when time comes to make the decisions. Who do you have in mind? From what I see in these comments, people, myself included, are only familiar with names from previous Administrations. We only know their ideas.

Also, universal health care comes up quite often in these responses as it does elsewhere. It seems to me that the predominent thinking sees only the cost of health care. I suspect that the delivery system not the cost will be the critical issue in universal health care. The question we need to be mulling over is what will a universal health care system in the USA look like. Do we want a system where a doctor only spends 15 minutes with a patient because that's what the payer mandates? Where do we go to get service? Are the current facilities adequate to support universal health care? These and other system questions will ultimately affect the cost.

[Praedor]

There is only one model to worry about - the world's BEST system: France.

We do what France does and it is not only much cheaper, but just plain better for EVERYONE.

That is what good universal healthcare looks like.

[Rick33]

This works because France is a much healthier country than the US. If we had Universal Healthcare for everybody who took care of themselves first, then we'd be looking at a good system.

[Rog49Thomas]

Sometimes when one has repeated problems with products, it's a good idea to ask about the manufacturing process. .

And to look at the process used by others.

One can do this with automobiles - say GM versus Toyota - and analyze a whole host of factors that result in a particular product being delivered.

One can apply the same logic to political candidates.

When political debate is constrained to a very narrow bandwidth, when the media ignores or derides candidates outside the tolerated range, when political campaigns are waged on images, sound bites and other tirvialities, you will tend to get a certain product.

And so great political differences will be whether we maintain 50,000 or 45,000 troops in Iraq.

And the person considered the dangerous radical will suggest that only 75 years is appropriate instead of 100.

In a democracy, the voters get exactly the government they deserve.

[ChapStick80]

Rog 49Thomas you do your best thinking at 2:01AM. Super analysis!! You make a heck-of-a-lot-of-
sense. Right on.

[jsarets]

Nowhere in this piece does the author suggest any policy whatsoever. That, in a nutshell, is why the labor movement is unprepared to forge public policy even if their representatives of choice are elected. They are a political movement with no agenda. What do they want? Protective tariffs? Inflation-pegged wages? Other misguided ideas?

Union families want the same things as any other working-class family: universal healthcare, good schools, and a safe way to save for retirement. They want an economy that provides sustainable growth, promotes peaceful international relations, and allocates wealth equitably among workers, innovators, and facilitators.

If the economy is an obligatory car analogy, then the market is the fuel, capitalism is the engine, and democracy is the transmission. If the labor movement doesn't like how growth translates into wealth -- and rightfully so -- then their beef is with our democratic institutions, not with free trade and free market capitalism. Our economy produces plenty of horsepower but not enough torque, so we're just spinning our wheels.

Hardly any Democrat will disagree that many of our free trade agreements have practical problems, mostly related to transnational corporations using them as labor displacement vehicles. Perhaps there is a worthwhile application of import tariffs, but only for TNCs importing products from themselves (i.e. a labor export tariff).

Find the right policy levers before you criticize progressive politicians for merely paying lip-service to the labor movement, because at the moment, that's about all it deserves.

[gemcando06]

I think what the author described is: running a government that works for all the people.

[broadbrush]

Any President who did not give consideration to the economic crisis that this country faces
does not deserve to be President. How can you compare the economy that Bill Clinton inherited with
the disaster that the next President will have to deal with.Fiscal restraint will be required and no magic wand will be available. There will not be much if any of a peace dividend with Iraq because of the necessity of revamping equipment on it's last legs. The costs in Afghanistan will increase and the political climate is deteriorating internationally with Russia , China , Iraq and Pakistan forging stronger links. There will be costs and consequences asociated with the missile defense system in the Czech Republic. Resolution of problems in the Middle East will be costly.Economically we are in a tailspin the worst of which we have not yet seen. We have an energy crisis, an education crisis, a health care crisis, and an an economioc crisis that will be extremely difficult to navigate and will necessitate going slowly and carefully in some areas while moving boldly and decisively in others. Don't compare the Clinton era with what the next President faces because there is no comparison.