To Deal with the Global Economic Crisis, Obama Will Need the Clinton Touch

If Barack Obama is elected President in six days there will be little doubt that the financial crisis of the last few months helped win him the election. But will an Obama Administration be able to solve the world's most complex economic crisis in almost a century?

Of the two candidates, Obama has more clearly recognized the need, as he describes it, for "new direction," "new leadership," and a "real change in the policies and politics of the last eight years."

Yet merely turning the clock back eight years, to the Halcyon days of the Clinton Administration, won't do the trick. However lofty Obama's rhetoric, the reality is that his chief economic advisors, people such as Clinton alumni Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, were among the biggest supporters of the deregulation of financial markets and cheap-credit driven growth that led to the current mortgage, credit and financial crises.

It's hard to imagine that officials who invested so much in the system now in collapse could accept the need for a significant reorientation of the American economy, never mind lend a hand in what French President Nicholas Sarkozy rightly describes as the "refoundation of world capitalism."

At the heart of such a refounding would be ensuring a more equitable and sustainable distribution of global resources and wealth. As Obama declared during the last debate, "When you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

The problem is that for over a generation our economy has been built around the myth that no such spreading was necessary. Americans bought into the ideology that we could consume like the rich without actually being wealthy, and, as important, without considering the economic, and ultimately ecological, costs of the consumer-driven "American way of life."

It's hard to see how, while managing at least two wars and numerous other threats to our national security, Obama would be able to devote the time, energy and political capital necessary to shepherd the country towards what amounts to a new social contract. Making the task harder is his well-documented difficulties forging connections with either middle or upper class Americans--Joe the Plumber or Joseph the hedge fund manager.

Obama needs help. Only one figure in contemporary American politics combines an uncanny ability to "feel the pain" of working and middle class Americans while retaining the trust of Wall Street; who has the command of the bully pulpit necessary to convince Americans across the socio-economic spectrum of the need for a new bottom line, and the detailed knowledge of policy-making in the global age required to manage what will be a long and painful transition to a new order.

That person is, of course, Bill Clinton.

It was Clinton, after all, whose 1992 campaign was driven by the slogan "It's the economy, Stupid!" One of his first moves after being elected was to convene an "Economic Summit" in Little Rock, where 300 policy-makers, scholars, business and labor leaders discussed how best to transform the American economy to meet the challenges of the emerging global system.

During the next eight years, the Clinton Administration would manage both the greatest and most widely distributed generation of wealth in the United States since World War II.

It is true that towards the end of the 1990s Wall Street began to pull too far away from Main Street, which coupled with Clinton's uncritical embrace of Free Trade as the panacea for the ills of the developing world, helped lay the groundwork for the frenzied deregulatory policies of his successor.

But Clinton's instincts and sympathies always remained with the working and middle classes, whose overall rise in standard of living he counts as his "greatest accomplishment" as President. As important, more than most politicians Clinton has a record of learning from mistakes, and for being able to talk convincingly both to Main Street and Wall Street.

Clinton's activities since leaving office, as head of the Clinton Global Initiative, have added to his position on the world stage, and to his knowledge of both the possibilities and the innumerable pitfalls involved in bringing about far-reaching social and economic change.

Indeed, while the annual gatherings of the CGI has been characterized (and in some quarters, derided) as "elitist," Clinton has been ahead of the curve in understanding the need to enlarge the policy-making conversation--to bring the most innovative scholars, business leaders, grass roots activists, artists and other culture producers, and policy-makers into the same room to share their multifarious insights and experiences in order to meet the difficult challenges facing the United States and the world today.

After eight years of Bush Administration arrogance, greed and incompetence, the world is desperate for such a holistic and transformative strategy for change, one that can brings people together across political, economic, and national lines towards a common purpose.

Obama's vision is both lofty and inspiring, but he will just be claiming the mantle of authority at a political moment when there is little time for on the job learning. And while his running mate, Joe Biden, has a stronger middle class appeal, his expertise in foreign policy will be sorely needed for other urgent tasks.

Given this dynamic, imagine the impact on world financial markets, and consumer confidence, if Obama announced that he was appointing former President Clinton to head a commission tasked with forging the national and global consensus to refound our economies on a surer and more sustainable footing.

Some might say that in the middle of a war on terror, and with the global economy spiraling into recession, stability and well-tested remedies are the order of the day, rather than pressing for far reaching changes to the very basis of the American economy. But history offers a precedent for taking bold action in the midst of war and economic turmoil.

In 1944, a year before the end of World War II, the United States brought together the major industrial states to establish a new institutional architecture for the global economy. The resulting Bretton Woods sysem helped ensure that out of the ashes of global war an unprecedented level of economic prosperity was enabled.

The same level of cooperation between industry, labor and government will be necessary to refound the American and global capitalism on a more sustainable and equitable footing today. Barack Obama has the intelligence and vision to achive such a transformation, but he can't do it alone. With a policy-maker and communicator of Clinton's stature to help shape the national and global conversation, there's at least a fighting chance that Main Street and Wall Street will transcend narrow interests and outmoded identities to forge a sustainable path back to economic prosperity, at home and around the world.

Comments

[DavidJames]

Mark,

I believe you have come up with an excellent way to develop an approach to the economic crisis. Of course Obama would have to have someone of equal effectiveness leading a working group to develop plans for dealing with the environmental crisis.

Regards,

[PatricefromNH]

No way!

If Bill Clinton had been able to transcend his belief that the wrong presidential candidate had been nominated, your argument might have some merit, but he couldn't and he didn't. His neutral endorsement didn't fool anyone except him. Why does this matter?

If Bill Clinton had chosen to become a mentor to Obama, your scenario could have played out because a mentor selflessly funnels all credit toward the person he/she is guiding. Addressing basic presidential ego, the state of the economy today is the ultimate challenge for Obama, the ultimate candidate. Obama has proven, over and over, that he is as bright and competitve as Bill Clinton, probably more so since Obama outmaneuvered the Clintons and directed the best candidacy in history. Whoever takes the reins of this economic runaway and turns it around will be an international hero. Common sense dictates Obama must do this job himself, not delegate it to someone who would slyly wink and say, "See? Team Billary was all you needed."

The second big reason your argument is flawed? The secret donors to Bill Clinton's foundation. Bill Clinton continues building his legacy of MAJOR public trust problems and as bright and capable as Bill is, President Obama should never put him in a political position that could create more public trust dramas.

[Liberoservative]

I have to totally disagree with you...

Obama is his own man and has his own vision.... and while many of those points agree with Clinton, a lot of them do not...

Clinton still caved to the lobbyists and I believe that Obama will not...

Obama has International Relations in his DNA and in his degrees.... I believe that he will seek advice from Clinton but he will not be a Clinton repeat....

This man is unique amongst all politicians that we have ever seen, IMHO.....

He is truly a transformative figure for American Politics and World Politics...

I expect many changes for the better under his administration... I also expect a lot of grumbling because many Americans will refuse to GROW UP!

[twofish]

To suppose, as we all suppose, that we could be rich and not behave as the rich behave, is like supposing that we could drink all day and keep absolutely sober.

-- Logan Piersall Smith, _Afterthoughts_

[Mark Levine - Huffpost Blogger]

i don't have any illusions about how the clinton presidency laid the groundwork for the economic disaster we're now confronting, and the same could also be said for the political and military failures of bush as well (renditions began under clinton, illegal bombings in iraq under clinton, etc....). but i think that his ability to talk in transformative language, to think through a transformative discourse and, as important, help bring it out to the american people and sell it, is far and above that of any other major american political figure that i can think of. obama talks a great game, but his policies are still ultimately based on the same neoliberal principles, with tax cuts redirected to the middle class. but perhaps these years out of office have helped clinton understand the need to fulfill his original vision when first elected of really creating a new economy that is focused on empowering the middle class. anyway, i can't think of anyone else who could do it, and the necessary changes aren't going to come slowly and piecmeal bc all the various forces that have vested interests in the existing system will fight them and dilute or defeat them. this is one time where the top leaders need to lead directly with the american people and use the bully pulpit of the presidency to lead us through the long hard process of looking into the national mirror--and at our own roles in creating this mess

[davidwayneosedach]

If every man women and child in China were to enjoy "the American way of life" we would need an entire virgin earth to supply the raw materials. FAST COMPANY

[NationalTreasure]

" Only one figure in contemporary American politics combines an uncanny ability to "feel the pain" of working and middle class Americans while retaining the trust of Wall Street; "

This comment is hyperbolic and gives too much credit to Clinton for something that is grossly overstated.

Rubin and Summers and the reappointment of Greenspan were Clinton appointees who have done more to enable and crerate the financial problems that we are currently facing.

[Chavez08]

Clinton governed by "Triangulation", making gestures to the working-class while pandering to Wallstreet. It was easy, easy.

Clintons' "touch" equated to the radification of the worst trade deals in U.S. history, creating a global slave-labor empire for robber-barons that, by design, destroyed the middle-class and put this country in 3rd World Status.

Also, your op-ed is very naive considering it's Wallstreets' mandate was to destroy Main Street in order to redistribute wealth to the top (Socialism for the Rich).

Wallstreet hates workers unless they are exploited for no pay. Per the share price fluctuations, Wallstreet speculators are only happy when they see signs of mass union-busting, slave labor exploitation and "productivity gains" in the form of working people harder and harder for less and less.

"Supply-Side" fails, always has, always will and Wallstreets' existence is no longer a necessity. The existence of a strong, prosperous working-class is the real driver of economies. Worker co-ops should replace publicly-traded companies and the MIC should be stripped-down, sold off and the revenue should go back into Social Security where Capitalists stole it from in the first place.

No, there is no reasoning with Wallstreet - it's time to put the carrot away and get out the stick. Wallstreet is the PROBLEM, not part of the solution.

Next!

[Fremon]

What one has to understand is that Obama will seek out intelligent persons to help him work out programs for the country. He won't operate like a Bush or McCain in seeking out the ideological who have predetermined agendas which will basically be for the wealthy classes. This is the difference between intelligence and Ideology. This is why an Obama was first in his classes and McCain last and let's not forget Palin. Neither McCain or Palin have the intellectual curiosity or education to go pass their developed mental frameworks and ideology. They, like most on the right, have hardened old aged beliefs which they refuse to compare with realities. That is why they hate science and love religious dogma.