Talking About JFK, Acting Like LBJ (With "Pragmatic Idealism" That's Neither)

Like earlier war-beleaguered Democrats, the Clinton team is attacking the left while miscalculating the danger on the right. Maybe they should listen a little more to Bill, the President whose legacy is now endangered, and stop damaging their own party. "It takes a village to raise a candidate," they seem to be saying, "and if necessary we'll burn it down to save it."

We're still processing the almost immediate verification of our theory that some on the Clinton team feel a profound bitterness, hostility, and resentment toward idealistic Democrats. The Clinton campaign did not distance itself from Sean Wilentz's tone-deaf piece, nor did it respond to my question about whether it provided any of its inaccurate background info.

Coordinated or not, there's a campaign style at work here. They seem determine to lash out as harshly as they can toward anyone who crosses them. And anyone who crosses them is too "idealistic" and not "pragmatic."

That's sad, really. Despite shifting odds, Hillary Clinton is still the most likely Democratic candidate, and the likelihood of her inheriting a damaged and fractured party grows with every misstep. As I've noted before, she has a basically progressive voting record. Even my harsher pieces, like the one that provoked Wilentz's rant, usually contained some constructive criticism - advice born of some wish-fulfillment fantasy, some still-flickering hope that the campaign would change direction in time to avert disaster.

Not with guys like Mark Penn around, apparently. On TV yesterday, Penn lowered himself by conducting the kind of cheap-shot apology that allows him to use the word "cocaine" again. (What happened to "not repeating Republican talking points?") Sure, he'll hurt Obama. He'll also splatter mud on his own candidate and hurt the entire party.

It's more confirmation that the Clinton campaign is conducting a slash-and-burn campaign against its own heartland. The "campaign culture" (as one commenter noted, campaigns do have cultures) appears to include excessive pride in the team's toughness and its willingness to use heavy weaponry. Weapons are fine, guys, as long as you're not shooting yourself in the foot.

Despite their protests to the contrary, it's the Clinton team that's drawing a false distinction when they speak of "pragmatic idealism." This is not 1992 or 1996. If we define "idealism" to mean opposition to the Iraq war, for example, most Americans are idealistic. It's not "pragmatic" to vote for Kyl/Lieberman or stick with the triangulation meme, when doing so alienates both your base and independent voters. Nor is it "pragmatic" to sling mud - and so clumsily, with such weak deniability! - further tarnishing your candidate's reputation.

Of all the campaign's miscalculations, this is the most frustrating. They continue to brag about their "pragmatism," even as it drags their candidate down with perceptions of cynicism and expediency. In other words, their "pragmatic idealism" is ... neither.

Wilentz and others continue to compare Sen. Clinton to JFK and FDR, but it's all much more reminiscent of another political figure: Lyndon Baines Johnson. Johnson was one of the great political tacticians and figures of his time. With his anti-poverty and civil rights agenda, he could have been another Roosevelt. Instead, his career and his legacy were brought down by war.

The LBJ comparison doesn't end there. The Right was Johnson's greatest political threat, especially after he signed the Civil Rights Act, and he knew it. Yet, like the Clinton camp, he reserved his greatest vitriol for the progressive community that should have formed his natural base. "You know the difference between cannibals and liberals?'' he joked. ''Cannibals only eat their enemies.'' People who expressed doubt in his war policy were "commies" and worse. He brooded about harsh criticism from the left, but refused to consider the reasons for that criticism.

In other words, the price of alliance or friendship with Johnson was unquestioning support, even when he was tragically wrong about war. Sound familiar?

Johnson alienated that core constituency so much that, four short years after a blowout electoral triumph, he withdrew from his re-election campaign knowing that he might not even win his own party's nomination. Is that the fate of the Clinton campaign, and the destiny of the Clinton legacy?

Of the entire team, only Bill Clinton seems to have a grasp on reality and the ability to articulate it. Only he seems to ring with authenticity when he says that Hillary is "the best agent for change." Yet he finds himself giving that speech to only a couple hundred supporters in Philadelphia. What's going on here? Where was the advance work? Is the team sabotaging its best asset?

President Clinton isn't attacking idealists or drawing false distinctions - he's trying to persuade them. But he's a lonely voice in this crowd, that's for sure. And his moral and political capital - one of his Party's greatest assets - is being eroded by behaviors he doesn't share or seem to endorse. Sure, he'll take Richard Mellon Scaife to lunch or join Hillary in wooing Murdoch - but he doesn't typically turn his rhetorical guns against his own troops (except when he brags of defending Bush's war effort "against the left," a stance he seems to be disowning).

Regarding Sean Wilentz - it feels almost fratricidal, in a sort of Civil War brother-against-brother way, for the two of us to be at such loggerheads. We're of the same generation and essentially share the same perspective. I mean, the guy's a Dylan expert, for God's sake. (His Oxford American piece on the making of Blonde On Blonde is must reading for Dylan fans. I could debate some fine points - e.g. about "Visions of Johanna" - but that would be a friendly debate.)

Still, even Wilentz's grasp of political history seems to be shrouded by his proximity to the Clintons, as in his cavalier dismissal of Jimmy Carter as a weak "idealist." It was Carter the gubernatorial candidate who told a black leader in Georgia that "you'll hate the way I run but you'll love the way I govern." Many progressive Democrats are pragmatic, too, and might be willing to hear that kind of talk from Hillary and her team. But they're getting contempt instead.

As for the bitterness between the likes of Wilentz and people like me: That seems to be a foretaste, a preview of the Democratic Party with Hillary heading the ticket. Hey, guys. If you don't want your candidate to be perceived as divisive, don't be divisive.

The people in the Clinton inner circle have been in the center of the storm for years. They've suffered personal and political trauma at the hands of what really was a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Yet, like LBJ, they're turning the resulting bitterness and rage toward their own base. This much is obvious: They're not open to feedback or constructive criticism from their natural allies.

LBJ exulted in the exercise of raw power, in the way it felt to grind down his enemies. And he tolerated no dissent or criticism from those who could have sustained him. As a result, he wasn't able to run for re-election and his party lost to Nixon. Surely Democrats, the Clinton legacy - and the country - deserve better than that. It's time for Hillary's supporters, and for those like me with no chosen candidate, to consider other options.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[outnow]

Hillary and Obama are too far to the right. Who cares if they argue about each other's shortcomings. Obama and tort reform and Hillary and NAFTA. Neither is progressive in the least. Both are from Chicago? That explains everything.

Edwards has seen the light on war, erosion of our constitutional rights and falsity of so-called free trade, i.e., "free ride" for CEOs and investment bankers at the expense of labor and manufacturing in the United States.

Edwards stands for the working man. The others stand for the business interests. Personally, even Edwards leaves me a little cold in that, in the past, he went along with the cave-in pack of heard animals.

LBJ was the "mad bomber" in Vietnam, supported the oil-depletion allowance, and had the FBI following MLK when MLK began to oppose the war. LBJ's wife owned stock in KBR. The Civil Rights Act was an attempt to continue Kennedy's vision and buy off the Black movement. LBJ was a snake, basically, a political one but a snake.

[ArchAngel]

ArchAngel"s 2007 Christmas Guide to Absurd Analogy Hating

Republicans
Hating Bush = Hating Troops

Democrats
Hating Hillary = Hating FDR

Independents
Hating Bush = Hating Hillary

NAACP
Hating Vick = Hating Blacks

La Raza
Hating Illegals = Hating Hispanics

Evangelicals
Hating Gays = Hating Evil

Corporations
Hating Globalism = Hating Capitalism

Likud
Hating Colonists = Hating Self

Islam
Censored

[waiguoren]

The mass hypnosis that has gripped this country runs unabated.

I hold no brief for or against Mrs. Clinton, but can we get real for half a second. The ONLY reason she is a front-running candidate is that she is married to a former president. Period.

Her time in the senate has been completely average. That is, the average bought and paid for hack, like nearly all the rest.

There may actually be a worthy candiate or two out there, but they barely get a look.

It's a crime.

[avergejoe]

Great Post

[jmsc1965]

Points extremely well taken, Mr. Eskow.

I have two very brief comments to add.

One, this is a presidential campaign. The candidates are entitled and expected to point out their own strengths and the weaknesses of the others. I do not like and I do not agree with the Clinton campaign's claim that Obama lacks the experience to be President. However, it is fair comment in the contest. Mrs. Clinton may not like Senator Obama's criticisms that go to quesion her judgment in voting for the Iraq War and for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for example, but surely they are similarly fair comment. I do not see, however, how anyone can say this recent round of commentary on Obama's self-declared injudicious use of drugs as a youth -- introduced by the Clinton campaign and kept on the front pages by the Clinton campaign is anything but smear tactics. The current story in the Democratic race is how Obama has come from nowhere, has completely smashed the inevitability of the Clinton nomination and has given the Democratic party a real choice. What is on TV? Drug use. Even the Clintons can't possibly think that's good for the party or the country.

Two, you still presume she will be the nominee. With all due respect, sir, I don't think you get it. She may have been inevitable without any opposition, but she is neither the best candidate nor the candidate people are comfortable with. The tide has already come in, and you should begin to accustom yourself to the reality that Senator Obama will be the Democratic candidate.

[FearlessFreep]

Is Bill Clinton's legacy "endangered"? I wish!

You can see his legacy in his wife expecting one-way loyalty from the Democratic base. (It's up to you to support me unanimously; I'll support you only if I'm sure that's "pragmatic.")

[feelfree]

Since Mrs. Clinton announced she would run what has been written by the so-called idealists has been particulary vicious and not constructive. This is where Hillary hatred lives and breathes. This is where the divisiveness emanates.

I heard a blogger who appears in the MSM say she would be fair and balanced concerning the candidates, but if you look at what has actually been written the negative writing on Mrs. Clinton is higher than all the candidates combined including Republicans.

The way I recall it Mrs. Clinton didn't make the idealists the enemy. They have managed to do that all by themselves by acting like the right wing of the Republican Party that also hates the Clintons. Republicans don't have to do the dirt this time, the idealists in the Democratic Party are all too willing to do it for them.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Hillary and her supporters can learn a valuable lesson from the so-called "hatred" they hear on Huffington Post.

They should realize there is genuine frustration among Democrats. Paul Wellstone used the phrase "Democratic wing of the Democratic party." Howard Dean tapped into that frustration and energy-- and actually made Kerry a better candidate for it.

Yet the Clintons, having been elected twice, own this party, apparently. They have the connections, the money. They showed us how to win-- though Bill did receive fewer votes (in 1992 and 1996) than either Gore or Kerry. And they ask, "What, do you want to keep losing?"

Obviously-- no. But we want to win with a purpose. Not just for the sake of winning, and then weathering the storm of eight years of Republican attacks.

Speaking of Republicans, their base is constantly reminding their candidates to return to their conservative principles. The candidates embrace these reminders and talk about being pro-life, pro-gun, anti-taxes, anti-big government.

Yet when we liberals express our frustrations to the Democratic leadership, and ask them to be true to their liberal ideals, they act like we're not being realistic, and we're "out of the loop" so don't know the practical solutions.

If Hillary is the nominee I can live with that, but she shouldn't glide through the primaries without doing more to show that she is progressive enough for the revitalized post-2006-midterm Democratic voters. We think we can win *and* be liberal. Does Hillary?

[longislandlol]

Why do you think she's the most electable, when a majority disagree with you?

[2LaneIA]

I'm an idealistic Democrat who is capable of pragmatism. I expressed that pragmatism in caucusing for John Kerry, because I thought 2004 would be a foreign policy and national security election and he was better equipped to handle the job than Howard Dean.

This year, the Democrat with the most relevant qualifications to handle the challenges that the new President will face is Joe Biden, with his decades on the foreign relations committee and his practical ideas for solving tough problems. Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson have good resumes, too. The candidates with the least relevant experience and knowledge are the three frontrunners.

Another way in which I express my pragmatism is in considering which candidate is most likely to stomp the Republican nominee. Here, I would also choose Biden. "A noun, a verb and 9/11" is just a taste of what this quick-witted, funny and tough debater would serve up in the general election.

But Edwards and Obama deserve a look in this category as well. Both can charm a crowd, and keep their balance in debates. Richardson and Dodd are not gifted campaigners. Neither is Clinton. Anyone who has been treated to one of her live campaign stops knows that it's a fight to keep your mind on whatever she is saying at such stupefying length, and the chances that you will get to ask a question, or if you do that your question will actually be answered, are pretty slim.

I can disagree with the nominee on a lot of substantive issues and still vote for him or her. But the campaign culture I wrote about yesterday is a reflection of Clinton's character. A President needs to be able to listen to constructive criticism and absorb whatever truth is embedded in it, not launch an ad hominem attack on the critic. I have no confidence that Clinton, as President, will listen to anyone she does not agree with. We already have one of those in the White House, and I don't want another.

[westwind]

My only exposure to Sean Wilentz' writing before reading his attack on what I thought was your very reasoned critique of the Clinton campaign, was his Rolling Stone article on whether George Bush is the worst president ever. That article was insightful and restrained, qualities that were totally lacking in his attack on you, and by extension, everyone that doesn't fall at Hillary's feet in adoration of her cynical style of politics.

Comparing her to FDR was, I thought, particularly ridiculous - FDR got attacked a lot before he was elected, but look how he turned out...Hillary is being attacked, so ergo, she's the new FDR. Quite poor logic from a professor of history, but par for the course from Hillary operatives.

It would be fine for Wilentz and the Clinton campaign to argue with opponents within the Democratic Party on Idealism vs. Pragmatism with regard to specific policies, but the fact is that her campaign doesn't appear to have any positions on anything. It is very well oiled and slick in staking out the middle ground, wherever that happens to be at the time she is asked about an issue, but if I, someone who follows political news and the campaigns fairly closely, does not know where Hillary stands on the important issues of the day, merely that she can debate well and beat her opponents on style and smooth talk, then I'm certain that most likely Democratic voters don't have a clue about her positions, if any, either.

Translated, Sean Wlientz' point is: We want Hillary to be elected - that's Pragmatism - anyone who actually wants her to solve the myriad problems created by Bush and move the country forward in a progressive direction are just being Idealists, and we don't do Idealism

Pragmatism has its place, if you actually have plans that you want to implement, and that would otherwise be in jeopardy because of idealism, but if you have few if any articulated policies, pragmatism is all about getting elected and keeping the electorate in the dark long enough to take residence in the White House.

[Countess]

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a Clinton administration would be progressive in any way. Look at the people that run her campaign and you will understand why they use gutter politics. More importantly look at the voting record of Mrs. Clinton and tell me what difference there is between her and Joe Lieberman.