Does the Clinton Campaign Think Idealism is for Suckers?

It all happened in the course of about 48 hours. First, I heard Sen. Clinton speak at an environmental forum and repeat this now-familiar phrase: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." These words, first spoken publicly by former President Clinton, were part of an answer she gave regarding what some in the audience considered the risk of excessive compromise on an upcoming bill.

Then Sidney Blumenthal announced in Salon that he was joining the Senator's campaign. As he did, he took swipes at Democrats who engage in a "self-righteous ideal of purity," a belief that they can "transcend ... political conflict on angels' wings." He said these Dems suffer from "an assumption of moral superiority and hubris" whose consequences are - at least to Blumenthal - "self-evident."

Strong stuff. Idealistic Democrats are self-righteous, hubristic, and hopelessly naive. Here's the problem: If there's one thing worse than a self-righteous idealist, it's a self-righteous cynic.

Next came Sean Wilentz, a Princeton professor who is also advising the Clinton campaign. Interviewed at TIME.Com, Professor Wilentz said that Clinton's opponents represented a Democratic tradition of "beautiful loserdom," a belief that politics itself is tawdy and beneath them. He compared Obama to Adlai Stevenson.

Then I began to wonder: In a campaign as well-known for message discipline as this one, could this represent a deliberate theme? Could the Clinton team be telling primary voters that idealism itself is a weakness, a threat to the party that must be rooted out and eliminated?

We all understand real life, negotiation, and the many compromises that make up daily existence. Many of us face the same issues in our own lives, whether it's by working with large corporations and government entities, or by living the daily exigencies of politics. (Although most of us don't run companies that do work for tarnished groups like Blackwater - groups that feed at the public trough - while guiding a presidential campaign at the same time. Or is respect for the principle of conflict-of-interest for "losers"?)

Every presidential candidate in the last 100 years has treated the idealism of the voters as a resource to be cherished, not a character defect to be mocked or derided. Does this tendency in the Clinton campaign represent a deliberate strategy? Or does it reflect a mixture of contempt, hostility, and frustration, as the campaign sees other candidates attack theirs on the grounds of excessive compromise with a broken system?

One would think that some level of idealism continues to guide Sen. Clinton and her supporters, or they wouldn't bother with politics at all. And there's nothing wrong with running a campaign on the idea that she "knows how to get things done." But it's a mistake to adopt such a hostile tone toward the idealistic impulse - which, in the end, is the only thing that has ever transformed society.

The Senator and her team should reconsider this troubling note in their campaign. A leader affects change in two ways: by what she does with the power she acquires, and by what she motivates citizens to do. Great presidents and their followers have always inspired idealism in others - not attacked it.

Reality will always be with us, and sometimes we have to settle for the best we can get. But sometimes we do get the best possible outcome, the ideal outcome, the "perfect" outcome - if we have the guts to dream, and to allow others to dream. (The civil rights breakthrough is an example of that.) Of course "the perfect should never be the enemy of the good." But the opposite is also true.

That's a lesson the Clinton team shouldn't forget.

Comments

[Rule Of Law]

RJ, you ask the question, "Does the Clinton Campaign Think Idealism is for Suckers?"

I tried to answer in another response, perhaps lost...?

Read Earl Ofari Hutchinson's post of yesterday where he shills for Clinton. Then note the aggressively negative tone and his method of supporting her by using the blogger's equivalent of the old 3rd grade retort--Well, They all did it!

He about nails what passes for idealism with Clinton's campaign right on the head! It's the do whatever it takes to win and the consequences be damned approach to morality, ethics, and ultimately, to us as we become the inheritors of her lack of true idealism. It isn't idealism at all if it can be bartered away so cheaply.

And the technique of the surrogate straw man he sets up to distract us from getting answers to the important questions of character and and, yes, Ideals, is so transparently Rovian in its attacking style that there is no room left for the answers we need, and that's just how they want this discourse to proceed!

There is a powerful element in that campaign, and Earl is just a weak shadow of it, that thinks that answers regarding Ideals are for suckers. Because I agree with you that without a clear concept of those ideals, neither Hillary, or anyone else, will "motivate the citizens to do" anything. And I'm fast coming to the conclusion that if we don't do it, it won't ever get done!

[bodi1313]

I don't think idealism is for suckers, it just doesn't get people elected.

[Bladernr1001]

I think it has been obviously and misguidedly idealistic thinking for liberals/socialists to think they could "manufacture" a "fair" society by having the government have more control over the marketplace.

Social engineering has been a complete disaster since the days of FDR. But you libs still beieve in the religion of socialism...don't ya.

Guess I would be aligned with Clinton on this one (yuck!?)

[Kane]

I can still hear the music of Fleetwood Mac's "Don't stop believing about tomorrow" during Bill Clinton's run for White House. But that idealism served the Clintons well when they were on the outside looking in. Now that the Clintons have long since been a part of the political establishment, such things as hope for a better tomorrow is considered a vice.

[NYDamien]

(I think you lost my part 1)
Part 1
The thing that hasn't been explained, or explored satisfactorily, is the vituperative, over-the-top, rabid hatred toward Sen. Clinton.........by a large segment of fellow Democrats. This goes beyond politics or disagreement on issues. It seems, like some some members of the black community consider those blacks who have attained or accomplished high achievements as being "uppity" or "forgetting their roots," etc, Hillary Clinton is equally derided for her success. Millions of words have been spoken and written how she should do this or that, or how she's doing everything wrong, yet they don't acknowledge that, in spite of "doing every wrong" she has built a commanding lead in the race for the nomination. Even more than the Republicans, these "Democrats" seem to become even more enraged with every success she attains. Have you noticed how most Clinton supporters have said they will support whoever wins the Democratic nomination, yet so many Obama supporters have said that if Hillary wins they will cast a "Nader" vote for whoever, or just sit it out. They angrily, and suicidely spew slogans like, "I will not compromise my ideals!" The Oprah Winfrey extravaganza should scare the living Hell out of every Democrat who feels that 2008 is our last best chance to begin reconstructing our great country. Just read the quotes from some of the followers, or rather, desciples......."He's the Messiah," "the Lord sent him to us," etc. The picture of Winfrey punching her fist into the air, and Mrs. Obama smirking in the backround give the Republicans all they need. I don't think the country is ready to turn over the reigns of power, to deal with Vladimer Putin, The Saudis, Pakistan, The Taliban, Israel/Palestine, China, etc to a one term State Senator who missed (voted "present") on the crucial issues, and who reinforces his wishy-washy image by sending out his wife and Oprah to whip up the well meaning, but politically blind groupies that make up much of his support.

[click212]

The problem with Obama is not his bogus idealism and vacuous platitudes it is the real conservative platform he is promoting and his failure to stand up and vote when he should. He plays it safe than making a statement with his vote. That is morst telling and foolish voters are buying into.

His stance on Pakistan is ludicrously uninformed.His unfeasible health plan. Not having a mandate will only tax the system more because most people especially the young who think they can wait to join in when they do get sick it will be on the backs of those who have been paying from the start. It is filled with loop holes and patch work that reflects that it was slapped together for affect.

Whether Hillary can be forgiven for her position on Iraq is not even the issue here. The real issue is how will she handle the complexity of office and our foreign policies. I am not a Hillary fan. I am a Kucinich follower since his platform is the most feasible for our country and he doesn't talk integrity he has it. Look at his record.

However, the Hillary bashing is just too stupid to be overlooked. Hope is a nice word, but substance is more redeeming and Obama lacks that completely. The allowing of Oprah to join his dog and pony show and the way that his wife, trashed Hilllary so inappropriately lets me know that he is not wearing the pants here and that is scary. I want Kucinich, however, if I had the choice of Michelle Obama running the country or Hillary and Bill rest assured, I'd pick the latter.

Obama is a slick talk nothing and unfortunately most of the people who will vote for him, will do what a hooker on the street says of straight women -- they will F***k on a promise and get nothing in return.

For me -- show me the substance!! The only sane alternative is Dennis Kucinich.

[AntonBursch]

Hillary Clinton,

Take this message to heart!!

It is THE ONLY reason you are losing support in this race. If you really think you are the best for the US, then let's see some inspiration instead of just cold cynisism. And maybe, Obama would be a great VP for you.

[DuckSoup1]

I read both the links - very informative.

I saw Oprah today, talking about Obama's unique ability to unite all Americans, etc. A certain amount of Obama's rhetoric is empty idealism, and what I consider to be an unrealistic rejection of the political process. I see this as rhetoric, not reality, since I think Obama is practical enough to get the job done.

However, there certainly is the chance that playing to empty idealism will backfire on Obama in the general election. Certainly there are historical precedents, and the press is eager to promote the old argument that the Republicans somehow are the party of grown-ups, despite all appearances. Clinton's advisors are making this argument, as I would expect them to.

It doesn't mean that Clinton lives in a world bereft of idealism or that Obama is a pie in the sky dreamer. It means the camps are sparring over whether Obama or Clinton has a better message for the general election. It's what they do. I think they are both good candidates, and able campaigners.

Why not let the campaigns practice spin, and stop being the mouthpiece for either one?

[A Meat Beetle]

So the Clinton campaign doesn't like idealists? Does that mean they don't want me to vote for Hillary? Fine, I won't.

[NYDamien]

part 2
No, the Republicans are once again playing it smart, staying silient as our fellow Democrats destroy our best chance to save our country. Hillary, in spite of "paying her dues," and enduring years of attacks, is condemned for being "ambitious." Yet Obama, with no experience, but with a silver tongue and a "vision for change" is fine with them. I'm afraid they're going to get their wish to "go down in defeat with their "ideals" intact," rather than support Sen. Clinton. Unfortunately they're going to take the rest of down with them.

[blue22]

Right on. Great article. But to summarize- aim high and the trajectory of your arrow will arc and hit the mark. Or to put it another way- hope for the best, expect the worst. Set your goal high and settle for what you are able to get. When you go into a negotiation, you should know your position and know what you are willing to concede if necessary and what you are not willing to concede. You don't just go in with no confidence and a willingness to give the opposition nearly everything they want.

Clinton is indeed a cynic, and she supports NAFTA, free trade, and the indefinite occupation of Iraq. She is Republican in sheep's clothing. She is an arrogant fraud, and a grave danger to this nation and its fragile democracy.

[Gipsytim]

It not merely the Clintons who think that idealism is for suckers, its the entire rotten Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The calculated cynicism should come as no suprise since one of the architects of the current (and probably temporary)Democratic majority is the hardcore traitor Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel, let us not forget is the former investment banker who was one of the primary authors of NAFTA. In a spectacle worth of Tom Delay's antics, Rahm Emanuel celebrated the passage of NAFTA, happy in the knowledge that American jobs and entire American factories would soon disappear due to his efforts.

The DLC and its followers constitute the Democratic Party's enemy within. For all practical purposes they are merely Republican in disguise. It is the Clintons and Emanuels and their kind who have refused to end funding the war and demanding that Bush and Cheney be accountable for their actions. The DLC only caters to Wall Street and doesn't give a damn about Main Street. These cynical grifters need to be rooted out of the Democratic Party and shown the door - preferrably by means of a well-placed boot.

[hopeless277]

New Clinton campaign theme:

Just shut up and support me.

[PanMetron]

I'll take *real* pragmatism over *false* idealism any day.

Don't believe handsome promises that have neither substance nor relation to a candidate's actual record.

[jazzman]

Visions energize. Ideals inspire. As Proverbs says, "Without a vision a people perish." We are a party in deep need of such a vision. As much as I detest and loathe the privatized rapacious Friedman and neo-con vision of the world the Republicans present, they wholly believe in their vision and will do anything to achieve it including subverting the Constitution.

For what do the Democrats stand? In what do they believe. For what would they go to the mat for besides their own position and power? Where is it that they would say, "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise..." A month ago Nancy Pelosi pledged on this very post, that the Congress would not give Bush any war funding this year without a commitment to withdraw troops. Today, Steny Hoyer has struck a deal that funds the troops without any commitment to withdraw troops.

It is the valueless, rudderless, caving that has almost made me hate Democrats, the party to which I belong, more than the rapacious authoritarian fascist Republicans I oppose. It's a terrible place to be to have to choose between ideological fanaticsim of Republicans on the one hand and and spineless rudderless weak kneed valueless Democrats on the other.