Robert L
Obama and Democrats didn’t inherit the economy Clinton enjoyed, they confront an economy struggling to recover from the Great Recession.
By Robert L Borosage
Democrats now delight in watching Republicans flounder as they try to free themselves from the failures of President George W Bush and the extremes of the Tea Party. But the GOP’s tribulations should not blind Democrats to their own challenge. The party must free itself from the legacy of former President Bill Clinton and the centrism of his New Democrats.
Clinton’s successes in office have little relevance for Democrats today. The 1990s were a very different time both politically and economically. In fact, many of Clinton’s policies led to the travails now facing Americans. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. And Clinton’s strategy of co-opting conservative themes offers no way out.
The Clinton Temptation
Democrats understandably feast on the comparison between the salad days of the Clinton presidency and the Bush debacle. Twenty-two million new jobs under Clinton; the worst jobs record since the Great Depression under Bush. The longest period of growth in US history under Clinton; the weakest recovery and biggest bust under Bush. Budget surpluses under Clinton; deficits as far as the eye could see under Bush.
No wonder President Barack Obama called on Clinton to make his case for re-election at the 2012 Democratic convention.
As leader of the New Democrats, Clinton tacked to the prevailing winds of that conservative time. His first presidential campaign in 1992 combined a populist economic focus on jobs — “It’s the economy, stupid” — with transparent efforts to disarm explosive Republican wedge issues.
He promised to “end welfare as we know it”; embraced the death penalty and harsh “three strikes and you’re out” mandatory sentencing; and gained editorial approval by blindsiding Jesse Jackson with his “Sister Souljah” gambit.
On the economy, Clinton’s New Democrats scorned old “tax and spend” liberals. They boasted that they understood markets, were sceptical of big government and disdained the outmoded social welfare policies of the New Deal and Great Society.
The promise of America, they argued, was “equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.”
Obama Succumbs
Early in his first term, Obama delivered what became known as his “economic sermon on the mount” at Georgetown University.
The US could not recover the old economy and should not want to, he stated. That economy was built on debt and speculation. It featured ever more extreme inequality, and a sinking middle class.
Obama argued that we “cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity — a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.”
But Obama is a Rubin protégé. He staffed his administration with Rubin acolytes and disciples — including Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers as chief economist, Peter Orzag as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jack Lew, Michael Froman, Gene Sperling and more.
The president has espoused progressive tax reforms but has gained little ground in battles with Republicans.
After passing the Recovery Act to save an economy in free fall, he turned prematurely to deficit reduction, undermining any chance of more spending to get the economy going and leaving Americans saddled with continued mass unemployment. The sad fact is that the old economy is coming back. Austerity continues to starve public investments vital to our future. The banks emerged from the crisis bigger and more concentrated than ever.
Obama and Democrats didn’t inherit the economy Clinton enjoyed — one buoyed by the dot-com resurgence and inflated by the bubble. Rather, they confront an economy struggling to recover from the Great Recession, still scarred by mass unemployment, falling wages and a declining middle class.
The old conservative policies — even in their tempered Clinton form — offer no answers.
Just as Bill Clinton argued that he had to challenge the old Democrats on social issues to get elected president, Hillary Clinton will have to challenge the new Democrats on economic issues to be a successful one.
This could prove to be the real capstone of the Clintons’ extraordinary political journey. They may well have the opportunity to demonstrate that they are not only agile enough to succeed in a conservative era of reaction but bold enough to lead a new progressive era of reform.
REUTERS
Obama and Democrats didn’t inherit the economy Clinton enjoyed, they confront an economy struggling to recover from the Great Recession.
By Robert L Borosage
Democrats now delight in watching Republicans flounder as they try to free themselves from the failures of President George W Bush and the extremes of the Tea Party. But the GOP’s tribulations should not blind Democrats to their own challenge. The party must free itself from the legacy of former President Bill Clinton and the centrism of his New Democrats.
Clinton’s successes in office have little relevance for Democrats today. The 1990s were a very different time both politically and economically. In fact, many of Clinton’s policies led to the travails now facing Americans. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. And Clinton’s strategy of co-opting conservative themes offers no way out.
The Clinton Temptation
Democrats understandably feast on the comparison between the salad days of the Clinton presidency and the Bush debacle. Twenty-two million new jobs under Clinton; the worst jobs record since the Great Depression under Bush. The longest period of growth in US history under Clinton; the weakest recovery and biggest bust under Bush. Budget surpluses under Clinton; deficits as far as the eye could see under Bush.
No wonder President Barack Obama called on Clinton to make his case for re-election at the 2012 Democratic convention.
As leader of the New Democrats, Clinton tacked to the prevailing winds of that conservative time. His first presidential campaign in 1992 combined a populist economic focus on jobs — “It’s the economy, stupid” — with transparent efforts to disarm explosive Republican wedge issues.
He promised to “end welfare as we know it”; embraced the death penalty and harsh “three strikes and you’re out” mandatory sentencing; and gained editorial approval by blindsiding Jesse Jackson with his “Sister Souljah” gambit.
On the economy, Clinton’s New Democrats scorned old “tax and spend” liberals. They boasted that they understood markets, were sceptical of big government and disdained the outmoded social welfare policies of the New Deal and Great Society.
The promise of America, they argued, was “equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.”
Obama Succumbs
Early in his first term, Obama delivered what became known as his “economic sermon on the mount” at Georgetown University.
The US could not recover the old economy and should not want to, he stated. That economy was built on debt and speculation. It featured ever more extreme inequality, and a sinking middle class.
Obama argued that we “cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity — a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.”
But Obama is a Rubin protégé. He staffed his administration with Rubin acolytes and disciples — including Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers as chief economist, Peter Orzag as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jack Lew, Michael Froman, Gene Sperling and more.
The president has espoused progressive tax reforms but has gained little ground in battles with Republicans.
After passing the Recovery Act to save an economy in free fall, he turned prematurely to deficit reduction, undermining any chance of more spending to get the economy going and leaving Americans saddled with continued mass unemployment. The sad fact is that the old economy is coming back. Austerity continues to starve public investments vital to our future. The banks emerged from the crisis bigger and more concentrated than ever.
Obama and Democrats didn’t inherit the economy Clinton enjoyed — one buoyed by the dot-com resurgence and inflated by the bubble. Rather, they confront an economy struggling to recover from the Great Recession, still scarred by mass unemployment, falling wages and a declining middle class.
The old conservative policies — even in their tempered Clinton form — offer no answers.
Just as Bill Clinton argued that he had to challenge the old Democrats on social issues to get elected president, Hillary Clinton will have to challenge the new Democrats on economic issues to be a successful one.
This could prove to be the real capstone of the Clintons’ extraordinary political journey. They may well have the opportunity to demonstrate that they are not only agile enough to succeed in a conservative era of reaction but bold enough to lead a new progressive era of reform.
REUTERS
