It's been 16 years since a Democrat moved into the White House. Now, the fog of memory and the spin of media are teaming up to explain that Barack Obama must hew to "the center" if he knows what's good for his presidency.
"Many political observers," the San Francisco Chronicle reported days ago, say that Obama "must tack toward the political mainstream to avoid miscalculations made by President Bill Clinton, who veered left and fired up the 1994 Republican backlash." This storyline provides a kind of political morality play: The new president tried to govern from the left, and Democrats lost control of Congress just two years later.
But, if facts matter, the narrative is a real head-scratcher.
During the 1992 election year, Clinton had campaigned for the White House under the mantra "Putting People First." But as economic analyst Doug Henwood was to comment, President-elect Clinton swiftly morphed into the champion of an austerity plan that could have been called "Putting Bondholders First."
From the outset, President Clinton made clear his commitments to the corporate centers of economic power by choosing such officials as Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, trade representative Mickey Kantor and Secretary of State Warren Christopher.
Soon after becoming president, Clinton abandoned his few initial stances that might qualify as "left." He quickly deserted his brief position for gay rights in the military. Under fire for his nomination of progressive law professor Lani Guinier to be assistant attorney general for civil rights, Clinton tossed her overboard.
In sharp contrast, the new president fought like hell for the corporate-beloved trade agreement known as NAFTA. And he spread his wings as a deficit hawk, while his campaign's pledges of "public investment" fell to earth with paltry line items. Less than five months into his presidency, Newsweek lauded Clinton's "shift to the right" and urged him to show "the backbone" to stay there.
But none of that has stopped the media's clucking about the Clinton administration's early "lurch to the left." The myth never died, though it was quickly ripe for debunking.
In real time, one of the most astute debunkers was Barbara Ehrenreich. As the only writer from the left with a regular column in a major U.S. newsmagazine (she later got the boot), Ehrenreich wrote a Time piece in mid-June 1993 that directly addressed the nascent mythology. The incoming president's leftward lurch was "a neat parable," she noted, "but it never happened."
Ehrenreich added: "The lurch to the left is like the 'stab in the back' invented by right-wing Germans after World War One: an instant myth designed to discredit all one's political enemies in one fell swoop. ... Maybe it's been so long that we've forgotten what 'left' is and how to tell it from right. At the simplest, most ecumenical level, to be on the left means to take the side of the underdog, whoever that may be: the meek, the poor and, generally speaking, the 'least among us,' as a well-known representative of the left position put it a couple of millenniums ago."
More than 15 years after Barbara Ehrenreich wrote those words, the tall tale of President Clinton's lurch to the left is still in the air. Warning Democratic politicians against being "liberal" or moving "left" remains a time-honored -- even compulsive -- media ritual. But as Barack Obama fills key economic posts in his administration, the left-leery and corporate-friendly press is likely to be quite content.
So let's be cautious, but optimistic. If we move too fast, it could hurt us. Obama may be too centrist for this board, but remember that most people on this board are actually to the left of mainstream America. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you are already mainstream. That's a dangerous assumption.
Survey after survey shows that approximately 70% of the populace wants out of Iraq now, and wants big reforms in the healthcare system. Those are not "left" beliefs. They're now mainstream beliefs.
Obama has promised tax cuts, new spending, and a balanced budget. Unless this financial situation gets better fast, he won't be able to deliver on at least one of those, in which case you can bet Republicans will jump on him. Some of the blame can be put to Bush, but the electorate have a short memory, and if things are bad in 2010, they won't think back two years, they'll look at who's in charge and try something new. I have noticed that voters are very fickle.
Finally, we get to the main issue; whether Obama needs to move right or left. Polls show that, for better or for worse, the country tends to run along more conservative than liberal ideologies. Proposition 8 is a case in point. The state may have gone for Obama, but 52% of the people voted for the proposition. Right now, it is in the hands of the court.
Obama was against the proposition. But if he publicizes that too much, it could hurt him. In that manner, it might be a good idea politically for him to move a little right, or at least not talk too much about California's situation.
Then Clinton got into office on a promise to cut taxes. When he got there, things were so bad he realized that a tax increase was necessary to make up the shortfall. Republicans jumped on this, called it breaking a promise, and got their revolution in 1994. Also, they signed a contract with America, but how far did that get them? Did they keep all their promises on that? No, and that's why they finally lost in 2006, was because they had made promises they didn't keep.
In 1996, Clinton won reelection, again with less than half the vote. Let's be honest again: Had the Republicans had a stronger candidate than Dole, Clinton may have been given the boot. However, that did not happen.
As to Bush: Having talked with my conservative friends, I can see where they think Bush was more moderate. He increased spending, which they don't like. He believed that global warming was caused by man, even if he did nothing about it. Conservatives often state that global warming is natural. Bush was for amnesty. Many conservatives are against that.
So because Bush was not in agreement with conservatives on many issues, they call him a moderate.
To get this realistic view, you need to get some conservative friends. I can hear your shouts of protest, but it is important. And no, "online buddies" are no substitute for the real thing. If you want to know how conservatives think, you need to know them in real life situations.
Then, don't be afraid to discuss politics with them. I have had many discussions with people I strongly disagree with. It annoys me when someone who agrees with me in many areas gets into shouting matches. It gives us a bad name. Be reasonable, be calm. Don't interrupt. And above all, make no assumptions. Don't drop your jaw in shock. And be open-minded. It's just possible that you are wrong on some issue or another. (But I don't see that happening much on boards like these, just keep open-minded.)
But those who have been hooked on campaign rhetoric don't seem to get it. You will.
George W was and is, not right wing.
HE was directly in the CENTER.
Or your only 8 years old.
Don't think for a minute that GW was right wing.
This is the kind of thinking that leads to people actually believing Obama is a centrist!
and rightwing nut blog trollers!!!!!
this election changed everything. this election said we want action. we want activism. we
want big ideas. we want bold initiatives. we want spectacular, imaginative solutions to
old stagnate problems.
Give the man a chance - its been 2 weeks! He isn't even in office. He and his team ran the campaign very effectively without your advice. Me thinks he will govern just fine without it too. whoever he selects to play on his team will live up to his expectations or be gone soon enough. I believe the phrase is "serve at the pleasure of the president".
McCain voters should attend a remedial tenth grade civics course.
Obama stuffing former administration retreads into new prominent posts simply will not due. They failed us before and they will betrary us again.
Remember that during the campaign, both Hillary and McCain said to Obama, "If you're smart, you'll do what I tell you." Barack invented his own Plan B, and the opponent who tried to manipulate Obama wound up eating his dust. Barack Obama is his own man, with a good mind, and he won't be pushed.
Barack got six percentage points of the popular vote more than McCain (52-46), Barack got a majority of the states, and he got 365 electoral votes. The Democrats have gained seats in both the House and the Senate. The favorability ratings of the parties, I heard on Rachel Maddow today, are 55 percent for Democrats and 34 percent for the Republican party.
Barack doesn't need to ask the Republicans for favors. He doesn't need to accomodate the Republicans to get legislation passed, and he doesn't need to accomodate them in order to please us voters. But if BHO were suckered into "moving to the center," the Republicans would put his Things in a vice, every single day.
The Clinton presidency was a disaster, and O's tenure is already off on a similarly wrong foot months before he's sworn in.
The naive don't seem to get it.... campaign speeches means nothin' in American politics. Obama NEVER was a representative of the socialist and/or leftwing politics. You got hoodwinked by the speeches and the cool sunshades. He's a centrist Democrat with serious Christian tendencies. Obviously some of you didn't get the memo. You will.