Obama, Bill Clinton and the Media "Center"

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.

Comments

[barbarossa89]

There are other issues, too, where Obama tends to be to the left of Americans. He's by no means a centrist, as some here suppose. (I advise you again, get some friends from the other side of the political fence, and see that you actually are not necessarily the only type of American there is.)

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.

[Citizen54]

I would like to see some real examples of where Obama is "to the left of Americans."
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.

[barbarossa89]

Obama has gotten into office because Bush was unpopular, Obama promised change, and McCain was really not a very strong Republican candidate. But he needs to be careful.

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.

[barbarossa89]

About Clinton: He never got a majority of the popular vote. He was able to get elected because he succeeded an unpopular incumbent, and Ross Perot was running.

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.

[barbarossa89]

I have noticed a tendency with many liberals to get angry with a conservative, or to get into shouting matches, or to belittle the status of others. It saddens me to report that liberals are far more likely to use expletives to describe conservatives than the other way around. (I don't think anyone will get anywhere if we swear about each other.)

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.

[barbarossa89]

We must be careful. I always say, don't get too giddy, and examine your party for weaknesses early on so that you know how to counter them. To say that Obama is perfect is wrong. To say that he will be the messiah who will save us all is an overstatement. We need to be realistic.

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.)

[MagisterLudi]

Obama doesn't need to "hew to the center." He IS a centrist Christian Democrat. Those to the left of the Dem Party ( no, I don't mean liberals) been saying this for awhile now.
But those who have been hooked on campaign rhetoric don't seem to get it. You will.

[blueskybigstar]

The Republican party is whatever the corporations create it to be. We have to dismantle the monsters.

[sixx]

Yes, Grover Norquist has already stated that Obama must ignore the vote and put corporations first.

[Emmory]

It's not that we've forgotten what the "left" looks like, it's that we've totally forgotten what it means to be RIGHT.
George W was and is, not right wing.
HE was directly in the CENTER.

[Seldon]

Crickey!!! I would hate to see what your definition of "right" is.

[canucklivinginUSA]

No, he wasn't. He is the least centrist president I have witness

[Emmory]

You only think that because you've been fooled.
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!

[alpha2]

What's odd is that the one thing not mentioned in this piece is the one thing always referred to when talking about Clinton's more leftward first term: the health care plan. The author seems to be missing the forest for the trees in this piece.

[POTUS2008]

actually the hot topic right now is that Obama is not moving left enough to please some of his supporters, who are angered at the rumored appointments to his team. i think its all just cable tv talk, and is of little merit in the same way 95% of what Chriss Mathews discussed every night of the primaries and ellection was of little importance and it is just entertainment, only instead of it being about football, or movie stars, but it is mostly just a lot of talk about nothing.

[blueskybigstar]

This talk of right and left and blue and red are ridiculous. The world is far too complicated for a two party system or to talk about things right or left. What are we, the Crips or the B l o o d s. People think that it helps discourse, but it does not. I can't remember the word, but in Buddhist teachings it says to avoid breaking things in two as if there were two poles and labeling something this or that. It only brings inaccuracy and keeps people off subject. The so called conservatives try to break things down like this in order to simplify things, change the meaning of language, and label the opponent with a negative term.

[Konnie]

get a clue! its over! no more triangulation. no more tacking to the center. no more listening to discredited repubs. no more credibility for failed talking heads. MSM pay attention, this means you
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".

[BrettonWoods]

Fifty-five percent of white voters cast their ballots for war, torture, FEMA trailers, wire tapping, right wing talk shows, fundamentalist TV preachers, food and fuel cartelization. The Congress loaned the banks $700 billions without oversight. The Federal Reserve refuses to tell anyone what they did with $2 trillions. Under the Republicans America's net worth has declined from $50 trillions to an amount less than half of that.
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.

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

I'm not worried about what the media say. They're just a bunch of yapping poodles.

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.

[MagisterLudi]

"Remember that during the campaign... "FORGET THE CAMPAIGN.
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.

[strifeknot]

Such blindness. You have before you another corporatist neoliberal and you refuse to see it. BHO isn't going to be suckered into moving to the center because he's already to the right of it.

The Clinton presidency was a disaster, and O's tenure is already off on a similarly wrong foot months before he's sworn in.

[Seldon]

where does all this corporationist stuff come from? Obama has got to be one of the least corporate dependent presidents in recent history

[canucklivinginUSA]

You just like to hear yourself sound contrarian right? It makes you feel good or something?