Clintonism: A Post-Mortem

Hillary Clinton, we trust, will graciously assume her new role campaigning for the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. We can look forward to her return to the Senate, where her intelligence, experience, tenacity, and newfound economic populism can be put to work leading the Democrats in the task of undoing the Bush years. Clintonism, however, is dead.

What was Clintonism? Depending on your perspective, its distinguishing characteristic was either astute centrism or craven triangulation. Yet, at the heart of Clintonism, was a fixed assumption about the nature of the American electorate. Clintonism looked at the trends of voter turnout, a steady decline of voting from the 1960s onward, and saw a citizenry that was tuned out and turned off by politics. The only way for Democrats to win was to narrowcast to the few people who were still listening and whose votes were still up for grabs. Bottom line? Ignore the rest, the millions of nonvoters. The essence of Clintonism was this cynical electoral strategy.

Then, as now, special deference was paid to so-called Reagan Democrats -- white, working-class men. (I'll have more to say about white working-class women on other occasions.) They still voted, and their votes swung between the parties. They had seemed to respond in 1980, 1984, and 1988 to conservative social and cultural appeals. (Often enough -- Reagan's "welfare queen" invention, Bush senior's Willie Horton ad -- these appeals were racially-coded.) The signature gestures of Clinton's 1992 campaign, the Sister Souljah smackdown, his attendance at the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, were played to this audience. To wit, Democrats must take the electorate as it was -- its size, its predilections -- not as it could be. Bill Clinton didn't invent the theory of the mythical swinging middle, but he honed it into the Golden Rule for Democratic victory.

It was hard to argue with Clinton's success in the 1990s. Democrats had lost four out of five presidential contests before Clinton triumphed over an incumbent president and then went on to reelection four years later. For anyone who cared to look -- and it should be noted, many progressive Democrats did -- Clinton's victories were more cause for alarm than occasion for celebration. Voter turnout in the presidential race plummeted from 55% in 1992 to 49% in 1996, its lowest level since 1924.

The practical consequences of Clintonism for the Democratic Party were submerged while the charismatic Southerner Bill Clinton was at the helm. Al Gore ran an essentially Clintonian campaign. Although implored to strike a more populist tone and to display the charm many who knew him well saw every day, Gore ran with caution and moderation. In November, 2000, the U.S. was in a condition of unparalleled peace and prosperity, and every historic indicator pointed to an easy victory for Gore. But only 50.4% of eligible voters showed up to vote, just slightly above the all-time record low hit in 1996. Steered by Clintonism, Gore came up short.

Signs of Clintonism's obsolescence and the possibility of a new politics emerged in the 2004 election. Howard Dean tapped into a hunger for political engagement among those written off by the centrist strategy. John Edwards revived old-school American populism with his 21st century message of two Americas. But after John Kerry's all-too-early primary victory, the Democratic-powers-that-be dismissed the evidence of an awakening electorate. "It's the primary, stupid," they instructed the supposed political naifs, and went back to business as usual. We all know how that worked out.

Perhaps it wasn't surprising that the guardians of Clintonism decided we needed another Clinton to rescue the Democratic Party. For almost a year, Hillary coasted to frontrunner status on the power of the Clinton machine, a message of restoration, and a strategy of electability. To the public, Clinton promised, 'let's bring back the good times.' To insiders, the Clintons warned, 'leave it to us, or welcome to a replay of 2000 and 2004.'

It didn't go as planned. In retrospect, we can thank the long primary campaign for exposing the moral bankruptcy of Clintonism. While John Edwards gambled that Americans had had enough of Clintonian economic centrism, Barack Obama aimed at the soft underbelly of Clintonian cynicism. In his now-famous Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech in November, 2007, Obama proposed an alternative ideal of an active, democratic citizenry, motivated by principle and undaunted by fear:

This party -= the party of Jefferson and Jackson; of Roosevelt and Kennedy -- has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose -- a higher purpose. And I run for the Presidency of the United States of America because that's the party America needs us to be right now.
...
That's why I'm asking you to stand with me, that's why I'm asking you to caucus for me, that's why I am asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept. In this election -- in this moment -- let us reach for what we know is possible.

In the last months of this campaign, Hillary's best qualities have been least on display. She has frequently resorted to the old Clintonian zero-sum calculus to support her unconvincing claim that she was more electable than Obama. She may have won a few primaries by the tactic, but the voters, as a whole, were not pleased. Her wildly fluctuating popularity rating closely tracked her campaign swings. Her ratings fell in tandem with her backward-facing gestures -- the racially charged insinuations, the 3 AM ad, bittergate, Osama, and the kitchen sink.

Hillary was at her best in this campaign when she transcended Clintonism and learned from her able opponents. Edwards came at her from the left, so she issued stellar health care and climate change plans. Obama inspired Americans to believe and to vote, so she began to speak movingly of her historic candidacy and all the women activated by her campaign. Her popularity ratings rose nationally when she was most like Edwards and Obama: hopeful, progressive, and encouraging new voters to vote.

With the brutal campaign battle over, there is no reason that Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot finally rid herself of the old baggage of Clintonism. If Obama proves true to his expansive vision of democracy, and more importantly, all the new voters stay in the game, we just might get the change we've been hoping for.

Related:
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers on Barack Obama clinching the Democratic nomination for president

Comments

[Kashathree]

"Hillary Clinton, we trust, will graciously assume her new role campaigning for the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. "

"Graciously assume"? Will we recognize a new character trait after seventeen months of watching her scratch, claw, and become one of the boys? I don't think so. "Gracious" is not not part of her vocabulary.

[iLogos]

Not.Helping.

[riffin1]

So many of the things being said by the Obama folk are VERY similar to what was said by Kerry and for that matter Gore "We won't sink to their level" is what's being repeated now. Why would the result be different? What can we do to stop President McCain?

[AngerAndDetermination]

It is amazing when you look through the posts in this thread. The Hillary supporters are absolutely sneering with their hopes (express or implied) that Barrack Obama -- and therefore their own party -- will _lose_!

Some of them are openly and venomously announcing their intention to vote for John McCain.

The Amy Poehler SNL sketch was too accurate. In it, Hillary says, among other things, "Vote for me, because my supporters will never vote for Obama; and he will lose."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/11/saturday-night-lives-mess_n_101177.html

The Clintons are poison. They have poisoned the party, because if they cannot win, no one can.

[riffin1]

If the Clinton supporters don't like to lose they're poisoning the party.
If the Obama supporters don't like to lose they're strengthening the party.

Would you be leading the charge for unity had Clinton got 2 percent more of the vote?

[iLogos]

Yes I would. I would rather have a Democrat in the office who is only 5% off from my candidate of choice in policy, even if the style of leadership and personality is not.

And if they didn't do a good job with the four years in office I helped them get then I would campaign for a better candidate. Maybe that would be my first choice from the previous election, maybe it would be an entirely different candidate within the party. I would only look outside of the party if the other candidate was in fact representative of my policy values and preferred leadership style.

[JennyJay]

8 senators and 23 members of congress, all her loyal supporters - - - almost tied her down and FORCED HER to accept that she had lost. She was delusional here at the end . . .which really harms future women candidates for anything. She has been a sad, pathetic example for future women.

[aliceblue]

I want to jump in here and thank Nancy Cohen
for the great article. Fascinating piece, well stated.

[riffin1]

That sure was good when Gore and Kerry quit early and didn't fight every bit of the fight. I wonder if Senator Obama will "know when to quit".

[iLogos]

Actually I disagree. I don't think she is representative of women. I guess it is the feminist in me, but I believe one votes for a woman without voting for all women, just as one can vote for a black person without voting for all black people.

I don't ascribe her successes or failures to all women. The idea that this was the last chance in my life time to vote for a woman is just disingenuous. I've had opportunities to vote for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, passed on both. Then here comes Sen. Obama, in my life time. I suspect I'll have plenty of opportunities to vote for women in the future.

[appleknocker]

Clintonism won't die as long as Wall Street keeps pumping transfusions into its veins.

[BluzLady]

According to the NY Times, Hillary will 'suspend' her campaign and endorse Barack tomorrow.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/clinton-is-moving-toward-suspending-campaign-and-endorsing-obama/

[Ironfox]

Even if she does she will have missed her moment of historic transcendence beyond the politically craven to the genuinely engaged politicl hero.

[generaldelivery]

There is nothing that she could ever do to satisfy the Cult. Even if Hillary had quit six months ago, you Obamacons would still be saying, "What took her so long"?

[wrabbitt]

I feel sorry for her supporters, and the lack of class shown in her speech after she lost!

[BluzLady]

Sorry, but it is too late for Hillary to be 'gracious' in any real sense of the word! Having her campaign mgr introduce her as "the next president" allthe while knowing that Barack had the delegates needed to win... is unforgivable on such a historical point in our country's history!

How sad that both Bill and Hillary have soiled their reputations and standing within the Democratic Party and whatever good they have done in the past, is now overshadowed by their tatrum-filled, classless acts of narcissim!

PS: I voted 3 times for Bill, once as gov and twice for president. I am a southern, hardworking, middle class, middle aged white woman who now proudly supports BARACK OBAMA and completely embarrassed by Hillary's lack of class Tuesday night!

[DRaymond]

"Hillary Clinton, we trust, will graciously assume her new role campaigning for the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. " It sure hasn't happened yet.

Clintonism, as you describe it, is really the democratic version of Roveism, which also focused on tiny microtargeted audiences of reliable turnout voters with wedge issues...gays, gun control, abortion and fear. And then to manipulate them with the media.

Obama realized that with the internet people were able to get more personally involved in things such as with blogs and YouTube and that instead it might be possible to motivate people who have never been interested in politics. Sure ObamaGirl was a silly triffle, but it showed the YouTube segment of the nation that politics didn't have to be dull stuff for old people. It could be cool, sexy, fun, and give you something worth getting involved about. it is to her credit that Clinton fairly quickly started leveraging the same thing, but left on her own this would have ben a much more Clintonian Clinton campaign.

[WIpatriot]

Differences: Roveism benefitted the entire Republican party down ticket, whereas Clintonism is solely focused on Clintons.

[mjc]

Well, it turns out that this blog, and the Obamacons who are always willing to smack Hillary Clinton around, have found their niche. You can bet your bottom dollar that there will be no investigating of a movement Cohen refers to: Clintonism. We don't really know what THE MOVEMENT that Obama launched really is either. What we have are two candidates who were/are so very different that there will be no attaching ideology to either. But as usual all the Obamacons say Hillary is only for herself and Obama is only for.....?African Americans? and the country. If Obama doesn't put her on the ticket, he is going to find some way to get her 18 million fans on board so that the 1% that represent the lead he has over Clinton can function. Don't think that will be too easy. We still know very little about him and what he will do, and we aren't going to learn that from a bunch of speeches because that's talk, not actions. Me, I worry about the real Obama and who he actually represents. But a campaign is no place to get to know leadership and that is all that Obama has: a campaign.

[JustMyWords]

We may have had two candidates who were very different from each other, but their ideologies were very similar - and a massive 180 degree turn from McCain. I find it impossible to believe that people who admired HRC's brains and capabilities would toss her beliefs out the window and vote Republican.

[mjc]

So you've found some ideology in Barack Obama? Pray tell us, what is The Movement? What is his ideology? Who the hell is he except a former, unexceptionable Illinois Senator and a more recent US Senator with colleagues like Tony Rezko, Daly, Jonathan Wright, and more recent clergy of hate?

[hokulele]

mjc a racist? I don't know. That is, maybe, I don't know. HRC telling us that she was in grade school in the seventies when she was listening in on her mother's Frieden friends discussions. Another lie. Bill lies. Hmmmmm. So now we're supposed to not further bruise her self-inflicted bruises? Like, take it easy or her campaign secretary will sink her fangs into you like an eel.

The Clintons are losers in the 21st Century. Say goodbye. And no way do smart thinking people want her on the ticket with Barack. Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Of course, she can go for the roll call in August so she can express that twisted narcissism that is Clintonism.

[AngerAndDetermination]

These jaundiced Hillary people! This nasty person _wants_ Barrack Obama (and the Democratic party) to _lose_!

This is one more piece in the (seemingly unending) line of evidence that Hillary and her supporters are willing to punish the party for not giving her the nomination (when in fact she did not get the nomination because she had neither ideas, nor courage, nor honesty, nor party loyalty).

Hillary revealed her true self when she said that only she and McCain are qualified to be president. I have never heard of a Democratic primary candidate who said that the Republican is more qualified that her Democratic opponent. It is absolutely revolting.

So now, they are saying "Ooh, boo-hoo! We can't _wait_ for Obama and our party to lose! Waaaah!"

Hillary is pure poison, and her supporters have drunk the suicidal Kool-Aid.

[EinChicago]

Anyone who truly believes that Clintonism (i.e., rational centristsm) is dead is naive on the levels of believing a vote for Nader was a good idea in 2000. It's really that simple.

[jmyoung666]

Voting for Nader was a good idea in 2000. The Gore campaign was awful.

[JustMyWords]

Yeah, great idea. We've done SO well in the last 8 years, after all.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

I voted for Nader on 2000. It was an excellent idea then because Nader was closer to my political beliefs than Bush and Gore were. I might vote for him again. Rational centrism gets us nowhere.

[generaldelivery]

"Rational centrism gets us nowhere."

Except to record low unemployment combined with record economic expansion combined with the stock market growing 400% resulting in the longest period of peace and prosperity in the history of the nation. But, other than that, yeah I guess you're right.

[fnygy]

I think you're wrong. We'll have to wait and see in November.

[U4IA]

If not dead it's about to take a nice, long nap.

[ronmyers]

Excellent points. Bill Clinton's time in office was a catastrophe for the progressive forces in the country. All the more tragic because of the opportunity he had to be a successful advocate a just and equitable society. In the campaign, Hillary could have better separated herself from Bill's failed policies and lies but she chose to be a Bill clone in the sense that winning was everything and principle nothing.

[Geoffo]

Clintonism = Me First, America second.

[jmyoung666]

Exactly. Thank You.

Obama had it exactly right when he said that PRINCIPLE and CONVICTION are absolutely necessary for the democrats to build a following like the republicans did in the 80s and 90s.

Quick aside - This election it will be almost impossible for the Democratic candidate to lose. Not impossible, but it will be very difficult for the democrats to lose this one no matter how they play it.

However,

One of the things the "pragmatists" in the Democratic Party do is rush in after a candidate gets the nomination and streamline the candidate so they have broad appeal and render them incredibly bland. Those in charge of the Gore and Kerry campaigns should not be allowed any where near Obama.

They do not seem to understand that while dirty tricks may help, the Republicans did not come to power in the 90's and Reagan did not get elected in the 80s solely because of dirty tricks. They got elected because the candidates espoused basic values and principles they ostensibly stood for.

The Clinton strategy had no ostensible basis in values or principles. I use the adjective ostensible, because regardless of the actual intent or real reasons for a policy or action, there needs to be one communicated to the public.

[conned]

What a great post! That's the whole ball of wax. Thanks Ms. Cohen!