It's 1968 Revisited, And It's Not The Liberals' Year

Paul Krugman's recent, widely quoted op-ed in Monday's New York Times opens with this: "It's feeling a lot like 1992 right now. It's also feeling a lot like 1980." I generally agree with a lot of what Krugman has to say, but in this case I think he's dead wrong.

It isn't 1980 because that year saw the completion of a genuine ideological shift in the electorate from New Deal/Great Society liberalism to small government/free market conservatism. In 2008, another ideological shift, back to the left, seems to be starting, but just because folks in the heartland don't like George W. Bush doesn't mean they love Ted Kennedy.

It's not 1992, either. That year, voters were also in a "throw the rascals out" mood, but not for the same reasons as this year. In 2008, the conservative consensus is fading while a new liberal consensus seems to be emerging. In '92, far-right conservatism was still on the upswing, and it was the Republican far right which instigated the personal repudiation of George H.W. Bush, who was never considered to be "one of us" on hot-button issues like taxes and abortion.

Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot took advantage of Bush I's weakness to divide the party and enable the election of moderate centrist Bill Clinton. But while Bush himself was a weak candidate, the conservative movement was still strong and getting stronger -- witness the 1994 elections. 2008 sees conservatism beginning its decline, but the electorate is nowhere near ready to fully reject it.

If this election year resembles any in recent history, it's 1968. That year, the Democratic administration of Lyndon Johnson had bogged the country down in a deeply unpopular war, and its domestic policies seemed to have run off the rails. The electorate, while still largely liberal, was ready to take a step back and catch its collective breath.

And into the breach stepped Richard Nixon. He may have seemed pretty conservative at the time with his message of "law and order," but he'd probably be considered too liberal to even have a shot at the Democratic nomination today. After all, the guy founded the Environmental Protection Agency, established detente with China, and was a strong proponent of affirmative action, to name just a few.

In 1968, the idea of a government founded on progressive liberalism and spearheaded by federal activism was a generally accepted one. Reaganesque conservatism, with its emphasis on so-called "family values," a strong military and a laissez-faire attitude towards business, is still the consensus ideology today, even though plenty of cracks have appeared in the facade over the last four years. In fact, in a recent Battleground Poll, a whopping 62% of those surveyed described themselves as "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative."

George Bush and his administration have made a hash of conservative ideology just as LBJ set back liberal orthodoxy. However, this is still largely a country of gun-toting, abortion-hating, God-fearing haters of tax-and-spending, welfare-queen liberals. Barack Obama, being an intelligent politician, realizes this.

So why is everyone giving him such a hard time for his recent forays into Clintonesque centrism? Because the left is so yearning for a Reagan-like transformational figure to lead us back to the promised land that it's projected its ideology onto a guy who doesn't necessarily fit the mold.

Bill Clinton knew that to survive as a Democrat in the age of rampant conservatism, he had to employ what is now known as triangulation, for better or worse, in order to get anything done. Obama understands the same thing. A liberal base alone, even an energized liberal base, is not going to get him elected in November. He's merely employing the age-old tack of running to the left in the primaries and then moving to the center for the general election.

Some have said this approach caused Al Gore's loss in 2000 and John Kerry's loss in 2004. But they were lousy, uncharismatic campaigners. Obama is exciting even when he's pissing off the progressive wing of his party.

Progressives and liberals who think that the country is ready to lurch to the left after four decades of surging right are jumping the gun. The pendulum is starting to swing back in a liberal direction, but it's still got a ways to go. While America is deeply dissatisfied with its conservative leadership, I think it's the Republican party that's in the voters' crosshairs, not the conservative consensus itself.

To elect a far-left liberal in 2008 would be like Reagan getting elected in 1968, or FDR gaining the White House in 1924. The country simply isn't ready yet. The liberals' time will come again -- just not this year.

Comments

[JohnDewey]

Mr. Sachs makes no mention of the irreplaceable functions of education & organization with respect to politics.

Like too many on the left, the author describes an America in which political parties & candidates use various limited methods of divination like polling to try to guess the sentiments of the broad mass of the electorate. The propagandists & other manipulators on the right aren't content with merely reading tea leaves and trying to reflect the results in their platform - they stop at nothing to get their message out in a ceaseless quest to indoctrinate their target audiences, even breaking the law to do so.

When are we, on the left, going to remember that democracy & education are inextricable? Why are we always so willing to throw up our hands and agree with the Republicans that Americans are somehow genetically more conservative than most of the rest of the world? Rather, we could be recognizing that corporations have spent the last fifty+ years teaming up with the right to propagandize Americans into voting for the GOP & against their own self-interests. Voter outreach must be combined with voter education.

If the national party and individual candidates can enlist volunteers, solicit donations & spend millions of dollars to chat up particular candidates, why is it so difficult to combine that effort with contextual information about progressive values?

[BatMasterson2]

Just because some describe themselves as "somewhat conservative" does not mean they are a part of the conservative movement. When asking these types of questions is is a good idea to remember the definition of the word conservative. It may be that a person likes liberal programs that have been in place for a long time, does not want to change those programs, and is therefore conservative.

[Doofus]

In 1968, a deeply disappointed Lyndon Johnson turned the
Presidency over to Anybody Who Wasn't a Democrat, and
that turned out to be Dick Nixon, who would have done most
anything to get the job.

I don't see that happening this year. Having McCain as
the Man will mean only 4 more years of the same.

Krugman is probably right, that more than
anything, the people want a change.

In that sense, the people will demand that
a Demo replace the blundering Repo man.

[TheRebel82]

Conservatism is a dead and flawed ideology. Thats the best thing that Bush and a rethug controlled governement ever did for us liberals. It opened up peoples eyes that conservatism simply cannot govern a country. It's an epic failure among conservatism. We should be thankful for that.

[Pquilson]

What you say is true to the extent that Bush etal have done a huge favor for liberals/progressives. However, it must be understood that although Bush says he is conservative, he is not. Neither is McCain. They both have a certain amount of conservative traits, but they are not conservatives who believe in smaller government and fewer taxes and spending.
I do not believe that Conservatism is a dead ideology any more than liberalism is a dead ideology.

[mosh]

I would agree. Bush et al are not true conservatives - if we must use a label neoconservative fits better - no true conservative would be for the spread of democracy, a 4 trillion dollar deficit, cutting taxes while waging war - and a preemptive war at that - nope, that is not a conservative agenda. Hence, the crux of your entire argument rests on a false premise -

i think people want a return to real values - like the rule of law applying to everyone and CEOs not earning 250 times that of a regular worker - or how about a balanced federal budget or at least some regulation on predatory lenders.

What's McBush and his crew gonna do - blame the sour economy on those tax and spend welfare queen loving liberals? Welfare Queen?? Yes, there are many uninformed voters out there, but they are not that gullible? Anyone who believes crap like that hasn't been registered to vote in 20 years.

[CarolinaDem]

"conservatives who believe in smaller government and fewer taxes and spending."
You know what, that's not a belief system. That's a knee jerk reaction. The philosophy IN GENERAL relates to a totally unproven theory of macroeconomics. do you believe in a smaller military and fewer taxes for the military and less spending for the military? Of course not. What conservatives believe in is shirking their responsibility for the commonweal.

[Gma11]

Fully agreed. There is no way Obama can win a general election running for only the deep blue states. He'd be buried in a landslide.

And, as an Independent, I am so anxious to have a president for ALLL the states!

[Michale32086]

Well said...

Many politicians and pundits claim they are "Americans first and Democrats/Republicans second."

Obama is the first that I have seen who embodies this....

Michale.....

[NTO08]

People care less about those who want to go for the milquetoast middle than for those who have principles, and stick by them...Americans want an honest politician, and Obama has now failed that test.

[mosh]

Or at least someone who appears honest and seems to stick to his principles.

[Doofus]

In most ways, the fiasco of the George Bush presidency
resembles Herb Hoover's before the election of 1932,
which swept FDR into office & a Demo congress to
do his bidding. FDR was not elected as a radical,
but became one in the interregnum between his
election and inauguration in March of 1933
(later in those years than today).

'Desperate times call for desperate measures'.

(BTW, Krugman doesn't do 'editorials', which present
his employer's official point-of-view. He's a columnist,
and if anything does 'op-ed' pieces, literally if not
figuratively personal 'opinion' pieces opposite the
editorial page.)

[Lon]

This is an interesting debate, and rather speculative at this point. Obama took it on with his Reagan comment some time back in which he claimed this is 1980, not 1992. Back then Krugman pilloried him for having something positive to say about Reagan. And yet in Krugman's column he is much more positive about Reagan.

Obama's point was that what differentiated Reagan and Clinton was the political situation in the year they took over. (Sachs is agreeing with that point although disagreeing about what situation we currently face). Krugman is giving Reagan even more credit since he is contending it is that Reagan campaigned as an openly conservative candidate. But note that W was able to get plenty passed and to do plenty of damage while running as a compassionate conservative. His problem was that the failures of his policies became evident too soon.

There are plenty of issues on which this country is liberal and increasingly so, although they still may reject the label. Obama can be a serious agent of change while avoiding labels by tackling popular issues that are liberal without having to be called so.

Of course, it is only after his election that we will know whether he will. Clinton may have thought he would, but retreated quickly after his failures with gays in the military and then health care. Clinton was a canny politician who was particularly well suited for holding back the conservative flood. We don't yet know what Obama will be.

[Fabienne]

To some extent, Clinton joined the conservative flood.

[qwr]

I suppose, if you call the overwhelming loss of Congress "holding back," and if you call passing legislation that took a conservative view of the world as a given, "holding back." And if you call the massive increase in corporate influence, "holding back," then yes.

[Clevelanded]

lol@ "His problem was that the failures of his policies became evident too soon."

[NTO08]

But note that W was able to get plenty passed and to do plenty of damage while running as a compassionate conservative. His problem was that the failures of his policies became evident too soon.

Bush abandoned that compassionate BS when he became President.

[nippersdad]

I love that line about Nixon being perceived as too liberal to run as a Democrat today. So true.

[Michale32086]

}}}}But that's not the real world... only the extremists
}}}}on the neocon side buy into that perception.

And so do the extremists on the Left...

}}}}What people are looking for is
}}}someone to trust to do the right thing.
}}}People will vote for someone whose
}}}platform conflicts with half of their
}}}preferences if they feel that person is
}}}good, strong, and empathetic. I think
}}}you have to be associated with at least
}}}2 of those characteristics to win.

Well said.. It's easy to be a good leader when everyone agrees with you.

A GREAT leader doesn't do what's popular.

A great leader does what is right, regardless of the popularity.

I see Obama as such a leader.

I don't agree with him on somethings to date.. I probably won't agree with him on some future issues. But I trust Obama to do the right thing for the country.

Nothing to date has shaken that trust significantly..

Michale.....

[Unrepentantliberal]

Wrong. Conservatism has nothing new to offer anybody. They've done the tax cuts and the hating the gays and have run up a huge deficit, the roads have pot holes and the bridges are falling down, the levies are failing, all of our jobs are being sent overseas, the value of our homes is plunging and the price of gas is skyrocketing and the wars go on forever.............. and so the ideology of the people who brought us this mess is not functionally dead?

Believe me only the 'dead enders' still believe in conservatism.

[Gma11]

Be cautious of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Conservatism and liberalism are both foundational and necessary. Conservatism without liberalism is stagnation, rigidity. Liberalism without conservatism is chaos. We need a balance.

[JasonEverettMiller]

Exactly. Well said. We have always functioned best with both of those halves working toward a common goal. Our problem today is bitter partisanship, not friendly bipartisanship.

[colleen2]

Conservatism without liberalism isn't stagnation, it's what we have now, an obscene mixture of fascism and neo-feudalism where politicians promise to 'help' the poor by paying adherents of the dominant religion to proselytize, where torture is state policy and where the basic rule of law is so corrupted that leading politicians of both political parties are willing to vote to confirm scum like Antonin Scalia. (Who, in turn, decide who wins Presidential elections). Wash, rinse, repeat.
One wishes that conservatives had pled for balance 20 years ago.

[timm0]

At a philosophical level, I can see the logic of your analysis and it appears sound.

But at a pragmatic, rubber hitting the road where you have a bona fide conversation with a "conservative" instead of a series of poll questions, I think the situation takes on a different hue. The media keeps burning the fire of superficial and dishonest "left vs. right war." But that's not the real world... only the extremists on the neocon side buy into that perception.

What people are looking for is someone to trust to do the right thing. People will vote for someone whose platform conflicts with half of their preferences if they feel that person is good, strong, and empathetic. I think you have to be associated with at least 2 of those characteristics to win.

(continued)

[timm0]

(cont'd)

Kerry lost because he was painted as weak and bad - and he proved the former by not fighting back. boosh won because he seemed good (just say "Jesus" enough times, and that's all some people need) and strong, even though he had no empathy. Clinton won because he had empathy and was strong.

Part of being perceived as "strong," is to stick to your beliefs. If Obama "tracks to the center" (which I don't think he's done.... the media has tried to frame it as such), it will make him appear weak. It is a much better strategy to stick with a plan that is 'too progressive' or 'too liberal' than it is to start off with a progressive plan and then cave on it. mccain's stupid flip-flop accusations can be easily rebutted in a way that makes mccain look both bad and weak. All Obama needs to do is take principled stands and rebut mccain's vacuous stupidity (policy and antics) and he can win in a landslide. Stepping away from his committed positions can kill him.

[Clevelanded]

I agree. Obama has merely repeated long stated positions, with perhaps the exception of FISA. Iraq, merit pay, even late term abortion-- these things he has stood still on since at least last summer.

Also, all I agree that all Kerry had to do was learn to throw a punch, instead of merely taking one so well.
He also would have benefited by sending observers to watch Ken Blackwell's Ohio election shenanigans, particularly in the definite democratic urban areas, particularly in the predominately black voting areas. I repeat this statement as often as possible so no one forgets: in predominately black areas the average wait for entrance to polling stations was about 3 hours versus a state wide average of 15 minutes.

[mosh]

Moreover, wouldn't Obama should stop playing by republican rules - accepting the premise that the repubs have been strong on terror and adopting their talking points. What makes or made Obama strong was disagreeing with republican strategy, not out republic-ing them. When Obama says war is not the answer, we need diplomacy, he appears stronger, not weaker, than McBush. IF he had said we need not give up our civil liberties to be tough on terror, in fact, just the opposite, he would have appeared principled and strong. Obama needs to challenge their credentials from the get-go. Bush lost the war on terror when he invaded Iraq. And Bush failed this country when he approved the use of illegal wiretaps and torture. Obama needs to reject those 'republican' values, not implicitly condone them.

[boing007]

Senator Obama's policy advisors appear incapable of framing policy issues in a manner compatible with Obama's thought processes and oratorial style.

[NTO08]

Wonderful observation...sums up his problem neatly and succinctly...this is what has gotten the left's bloggers enraged, and deservedly so...Obama would be diddley squat if it wasn't for the left's championing his cause with new and young voters.

[wayoutleft]

fine. well-stated. "change" is off the table. obama can't change anything; he can only conform to the prevailing political zeitgeist. i never believed otherwise; but i did think obama himself believed otherwise. democrats have been centrists my whole life. ironically, they are perceived as liberals no matter how much they prevaricate and pander. in conformity with bush cheney policy, obama lets the generals determine his course of action. in bush's eight years, i have never known the democratic party to offer much objection to his policies. why start now? after obama is elected, however, it will be democrats' turn to enlist to fight in iraq and the new pakistan front; and it will be the republican's turn to point the chickenhawk finger.

[Clevelanded]

Hey, presumably intelligent person. There are plenty of Democrats in the military now. I have three cousins and many good friends in the service and none of them are pugs. Let us not overlook the 1 in 5 service members who are black. 8-9 of 10 whom are Democrats

[JC1c1]

Lets not forget that many of the military are none to happy about how soldiers have been treated once they return home. Many who had problems with what they saw, well they didnt get much help. Thousands are homeless, and sorry but just because they fixed it doesnt mean that many of our soldiers will forget about the conditions of a certain VA. Not to mention how many VAs have been shut down across the country, so now our soldiers who need medical attention must travel more hours everytime they have an appointment.

I am sure they will remember that Bush went to Lay's funeral, but never to one soldiers' funeral, NOT ONE!

Maybe it was politics, but at least the democrats stood up. At least they fixed some things, not all things. They could have done more, but at least they did something. Where Republicans, including McCain was just another yes man. It showed on the recent G.I. Bill.

They wont forget how Rush went off on an injured soldier, who went to Iraq, and I cant recall one Repub standing up and saying one thing about it. After all this soldier, well he disagreed with the Iraq war, so he deserved it right? Just forget that he is a soldier, you know the party that is so patriotic, so quick to put that red, white and blue in the background of their speeches. Freedom isnt free right? Did they forget this, or did they ever believe it?

[Jonni Rae]

Obama is progressive,that means making real progress on vital issues: Energy (he will invest 150 mil and has already surrounded himself with some of the best minds in the business on this), restoring America's moral authority in the world by ending this war sold to us by corrupt liars, and using diplomacy and intelligence once again. Getting the US out of third world status in health care, the state of our infrastructure and our public education system. Bush and the repubs have left a big mess (they always do). but they haven't made any progress at all, they have taken us backwards. We need a progressive, like Obama to take us forward.

[mosh]

There has been no effective opposition party in seven plus long years. And now it appears there never will be.

[Michale32086]

Obama is really this country's best hope to turn things around.

That is why I am so aggravated by all the attacks against Obama for his positions. Some of Obama's positions I agree with, some I don't.. But in all cases I defer to his judgment as the guy in charge. He has the information to act. I guess it's a matter of trust and respect. I respect Obama and trust that he will not abuse that respect.

I see people advocating and extorting Obama to flip flop on issues and I simply cannot believe that THEY don't know how the GOP will crucify Obama in the election if he does what the Hysterical Left says to do. I have to at least consider the possibility that those that attack Obama over his positions are either the Clinton PUMA crowd, whose stated goal is to derail Obama's campaign. Or the GOP whose agenda and intentions are obvious.

With the exception of a few issues (4 to be exact) I am probably the most liberal guy on here. An Obama presidency is VITAL to this country..

I don't understand how people can't see that.

Michale.....

[larry278]

There are times when the "best hope" isn't good enough. Why not frame it as, BHO's ever changing positions are deeply flawed but BHO is much better than JS McC? There will be no changes in brand USA except changes that won't harm the USA's power elite. Obama talked a good game in the primaries but this is the general election. No one save a candidate annointed as safe by the establishment gets to become POTUS. Obama has had to compromise to become the establishment's choice in '08. That leaves Obama as a compromised man, better than McCain but no longer an agent of change. To be crude: Obama is the best of a bad lot for both progressives & the establishment.

[Michale32086]

Personally, I am heartened by Obama's latest stand.

He has proven time and time again that he will do what is RIGHT for the country, not what is POPULAR with the Hysterical Left...

That simply reaffirms to me that Obama is a man of principle and worthy of my respect and trust..

The next test of this will be Obama's pick for VP..

If he picks Hillary, he will show me that he is a Democrat first and an American second.

If he picks anyone else, he will show me that he is an American first and a Democrat second.

I have a feeling he will go with the latter...

Time will tell..

Michale.....

[BillZBubb]

Sure, Michale, you're a real liberal guy! More liberal than most of us--that's why most of us are too conservative to agree with insights of yours such as: "Bush will probably go down in history as a great leader".

Except four issues indeed. You are a right winger on the issues that matter most.

No real liberal would call true liberals the "hysterical left".

[Michale32086]

Please post where I said that "Bush will probably go down in history as a great leader".

You can't because I never said it..

I have said that Lincoln was decried in his day much the same as Bush is today. Since we revere Lincoln as a great leader today, there is precedence to think that MAYBE future historians will view Bush in the same way..

A logical statement free from any emotionalism and political bigotry.

Unlike your statements that are nothing but hysterical and irrational and laced with bigotry..

}}}}You are a right winger on the issues that matter most.

Of course, you can PROVE this, right??

Of course you can't. All you have is personal attacks and emotional bigotry...

Nothing else...

I pity you.

Michale.....

[ohmercy]

Sorry, no.
Dissent is American. The reason we have the mess we have is because there was not enough dissent for the last 8 years.

The only real problem I have with O right now is FISA.
This is not a "trust me" issue.
We are talking about the Constitution and civil liberties.

I am really disgusted with him about this.

the rest I can say "oh, politics" but not this. p he spoke so eloquently about it as he sidled up to Feingold in Wisconson and swore to Filibuster with Dodd, Feingold and Clinton.

What I don't like is that he won the primary by painting Clinton as more conservative and triangulating when in fact it turns out she is less so than he is.

Live and Learn I guess.
As far as the Iraq war stuff goes, that was all media crap.

There was no change at all, it was phrased differently that's all.

[Jonni Rae]

He voted to strip the bill of retroactive immunity, as he said he would. HE also did behind the scenes work, because the number of senators who backed this went from 14 to 40. There was no filibuster. He is still only a Senator with one vote. I am ok with the FISA think because of his vote today. I am not ok with the senators who voted to keep the retroactive immunity in.