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

[sockman]

I suspect that you've performed a post-mortem on an animal that is still very much alive. You should know that about 18,000,000 people (zombies you might argue) went to the polls and placed an X right next to the Clinton name. Were these people infact trying to raise the dead or voting for a dead "ism"? Ignoring that simple fact (what amounts medical malpractice in my estimation) suggest to the reader that you were somewhat hasty and indeed careless in your dissection and pronouncment. If 18 million Americans went to the polls to support "Clintonism" which you argued is DEAD, then one can only conclude that "Obamaism" is clearly on life-support having only mustered a few votes more or less than a "dead" ideology. As a political scientist, your only lab is the real world and the only true measurment applicable here is the voice of the voters. I suggest a 2nd opinion is clearly in order here to prevent a later and more costly exumation.

[Heidfeld]

Ha! Well written.

Only in the delusional world of Obamaism can a 1% victory be a decisive statement of... anything.

[happypup]

A 1% victory is just that - A VICTORY !

You may not like the outcome, you may even chose to go support McCain, but accept it you must. We hope that you will decide to get behind Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee. We could use your help, and will welcome you with open arms and treat you with respect. The door will remain open - and we hope you will chose to come in and join us. If you don't? Then we are prepared to forge ahead and win in November without your support.

[aht772e]

you are missing the point of the post. ClintonISM is dead (not HRC's candidacy, although I believe that it is also), because even in this campaign, she didn't start to win votes until she rejected triangulation and became a populist.

I believe that the poster is correct, that people are no longer willing to move to the middle of a sinking ship, that they want to actually move to a place that will alow the ship to sail again. This country needs to move in one direction or another, because trading water is just leaving us all to drown. (enough water metaphors for everyone yet?) It is time for actual ideas and action to make a difference , to take our country back from the powers that have taken democracy and turned it into a form af athletic competition.

[NicoleAnonymous]

I'm really surprised that wasn't censured - I don't support Clinton but I think this piece was absurd.

And calling it a "post-mortem" was offensive but they don't want anyone mentiong that.

[spqesq]

Hey "sockman". It's over. She lost.

[truthskr]

Hi there! Yeah...not sure if you've heard, but Obama won! I know, I know, it was hard to tell that Hillary's oh so gracious concession speech held three stories below street level in NYC in an auditorium that had neither any TV monitors, cellular or internet reception (you know, so that all of her heavily in denial supporters would not be subjected to the news that Obama WON and Clinton actually LOST), but it's true.

Your argument is pathetic and steeped in denial.

But this blogger was very wrong about one thing - any gracious concession coming from Hillary. Last night would have been the appropriate time, but since she failed miserably, anything now offered is way too little too late. If the situation were reversed, Hillary supporters such as yourself would be absolutely seething with rage. But no, Obama has to take the high road, stroke Hillary's ego at every available opportunity even after outright winning the nomination, and we as his supporters are expected to kiss Hillary's supporters' a**es because we "need" their votes. I guess the fact that Obama and Hillary are nearly identical on issues, or that they are both Democrats (as are, presumably, the bulk of both of their supporters) isn't enough for Hillary's irrational followers.

[Strywever]

Does that 18M number count all the people in the caucus states? Or perhaps they "don't count"?

[Canaris]

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

Too late. She had her chance to do just that last night, and declined to sieze the moment.

Prepare to see a floor fight at the convention in August. I didn't honestly think she'd take things that far, but I am now certain that she plans to do just that. Sen. Clinton talks a good game, but I believe she is incapable of putting anything ahead of herself and her ambition. It's pretty sad for someone who spent the nineties voting for, supporting, and defending them to come to this realization, but there it is.

[mick3]

Ditto, in spades.

[truthinreporting]

Absolutely too late. Her performance last night has alienated even more people, even people who previously supported her. I don't know how much of an impact she can have in the Senate now that she has so disrespected the presumptive nominee, and indeed, the entire party.

[mjc]

Most of her supporters would be happy to have the floor fight. Obama can't win without her and her supporters. Period. You all know it but don't want to admit it.

[aht772e]

not only do i think that Obama can win with the support of democrats, independents and right minded republicans and without the support of hillary supporters (apparently democrats and they are 2 different animals), but i think that hillary (and womens rights advocates) needs Obama supporters much more if she (and they) is/are to have ANY future in politics. I think that true Hillary supporters as opposed to those who wanted Hillary to be the democratic nominee are few and far between.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Are her supporters that childish?

[fnygy]

What about the reverse - could Mrs. Clinton win without the Obama coalition? I think not.

[uncalledfor]

The thing about Hillary is, she does whatever it takes to stay popular - she blows with the wind. Now there is a hurricane against her. Eventually she will blow along with it. Why? Because there is no real Hillary, there is only a power-hungry opportunist. Supporting Obama is the best way to fullfill her messianic needs.

[jeffrey8569]

And you wonder why be Clinton supporters will fight you in Denver,or vote for McCain in Nov

[obamajusrocks]

Accurate, well written article. Good job !

[ibsteve2u]

Man...as a white guy who was been through many stages - military, hippy fringe, blue collar, white collar, et al - I (well, my ego, anyway) wish like hell I could call this article just so much bullshit.

But I would caution the reader not to view "white, working class men" as a selfish lot; social pressure to succeed at raising families while "keeping up with the Joneses" has a lot to do with it, particularly as organized labor has weakened over the decades and job security has evaporated.

IMHO, fear of economic insecurity allowed "white, working class men" to be deluded by false promises.

When your primary worry is having the economic means to allow your wife to live the fiction of "Dallas" while your kids live the fiction of "90210", you are a sucker for lies like "trickle down" economics and "Free trade is causing us to lose manufacturing jobs? Oh, don't worry - we're changing into a service economy!".

[gadfly55]

Hillary and Bill would say and do anything to hold power. She cannot be trusted and is no champion of the ordinary hard-working, hard-pressed decent Reagan Democrats. The world has moved on, the whole world and most people in it. The paradigm for political genius has shifted irrevocably. The Clintons are paper in the world of cyber-space instantaneous communications, data-processsing and fund raising. Obama knows and now the country is going to wake up.

[gurukalehuru]

So far, not so gracious.

[swanky]

Nancy, as a teacher of political "science", I'm surprised that you can be as thoroughly naive about the Clintons as you displayed here. Bill Clinton beat an incumbent and won reelection not by carving the country into the northeast, upper midwest and west coast the way Gore and Kerry did; Bill Clinton appealed to voters and carried states Gore and Kerry couldn't. Look at the maps. Winning is everything. Making a point - that's what losers say they did. This isn't some game to be played for the amusement of academics and journalists. There is much too much at stake and the really experienced and most competent people are being ridiculed and vilified in the MSM (of which this site is now a member) in favor of empty slogans. Throughout history, leftwing fascists eventually attempt to nationalize their nations through force, manipulation, and propaganda, while the remaining competent and experienced policy professionals are forced out in favor of political loyalists. From Bush to Obama, fascism is coming. Hillary was the best hope this country ever had of defeating it. Because fascism is spectrum-neutral, it doesn't matter which side you're on, when you favor jingoism over competent leadership, and ignore the popular center, you only foster its growth. Fascism is coming here.

[granamica]

And yet she lost so I guess she doesn't carve as well.

[TexasDem0]

“leftwing fascists?” That’s an oxymoron.

[Realbluesky]

In case you haven't noticed, fascism is already here. And it was brought about partly by the Clintons by caving in to the right on every major issue.
You have a nerve calling someone else naive.
What you have written fits the Clintons like a glove.

[peorgietirebiter]

okay, now go back and try reading the article carefully. Bill was the exception that proved the rule.

[JimR]

"Hillary was the best hope this country ever had of defeating it."

Thanks for the laugh!

[LRM216]

"Hillary Clinton will graciously assume her new role campaigning for the Democratic nominee..."

In this lifetime? I think not.

[Dv0rak]

You are flat-out making the situation worse for the Democrats with posts like this. Please stop hurting america. If you can't post something more thoughtful, please be quiet.

[mick3]

Critical comment does not hurt America. Who has been making the situation bad for Democrats is poor Hillary Clinton, who doesn't get it. The Clintons operate in battle mode, they think in battle mode, which is why Bill kept bombing nations during "peacetime', nations that in no way threatened us. Hillary would "obliterate" a nation that hasn't attacked another nation for over a century. She voted against the ban on cluster bombs, which have killed and maimed so many children around the world. She has been wrong on nearly every issue of war and peace, and this person expects us to trust her judgment at 3 a.m.? I don't think so. She has changed with the direction of the political wind, although not as blatantly as McCain, whom she has more in common with than Obama (the bellicosity, the inability to stick with the truth, e.g., Bosnia). If anyone has made things worse for Democrats it has been her incontinent speech in support of her ambition, which Republicans will use against the Democratic candidate come Novermber.

[hopeless277]

Do you even know who Hillary Clinton is?

[RoaringMoose]

I do she is my Senator In NY state and I am still waiting for her to keep one any one of the many promises she made to get my vote here in New York State. She is not very good at keeping promises!

[Zeje]

She refused to meet with her own constituents who were against the war.

[Amminadab]

What specific promises are you referring to?

[johnwinner]

I predicted her speech would be a declaration of war against the Democratic Party; by insisting the Pary's nominee cannot win, that is what her speech accomplished. The nightmare continues; the sooner the Party boots her out, the sooner they can get on to the general election.

[Amminadab]

Should the party also boot out the nearly 18 million who voted for her?

Are all Obama supporters so short-sighted?

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Are Clinton supporters so petulant that they would give us 4 more years of a Republican regime because their candidate didn't win? If so, who needs them?

[ObamaEdwards]

I've never read a better, more eloquent and concise description of the Clinton approach to politics. Bravo!

[Bozwellian]

..it may indeed be a good assessment of the Clintonian politics, but the voters have sent the message WE ARE TIRED OF THE STATUS QUO in place and DO WANT REAL CHANGE and ARE tired of being categorized and marginalized and PLAYED and FIDDLED with ....The VOTERS REJECTED FURTHER CLINTONISMATICALS !!! IT IS time to turn a page and we, the voters are indeed willing to roll the dice and seize the opportunity that Obama presently offers...We know it will be a battle and take hard work , but it IS our future and the future of OUR kids and theirs and the nation...If we DO NOT seize this moment and work hard to move forward, well, then we evidently deserve the likes of Bush or Clinton or McCain

[Overd0g]

The death of Clintonism is the best thing to come out of this election cycle. I certainly had the "audacity of hope", hoping that the Clintons would fade away into history.

[BeyondTheBull]

I'm with you, but I don't think Clintonism is dead ... yet. Maybe in the very near future the Clintons will fade out of politics ... and take Chelsea with them.

[BubbaC33]

It is good to see Obama supporters are just as rude in winning as they were in cheating.

[robeson]

"Hillary Clinton will graciously assume her new role campaigning for the Democratic nominee,"

Anyone who watched her speech last night can tell you, she'll do no such thing. It appears she is still taking contest to the convention floor.

[dadw5boys]

Clintonism? Is this a new term? like Regeanism or Bushism or communism? Is that what people are trying to infer ?

Inlike Capitalism which is great till it falls on you and takes your jobs and your government.