Hillary, Bill,
& the DLC
by James Kroeger
June 28th, 2005
An active
discussion at the
Daily Kos earlier today focused on a snippet of information
taken from a
Des Moines Register article on upcoming changes in the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The story quoted “sources” as
saying that Sen. Hillary Clinton is “expected
to have a key position in the group’s leadership.” If
true, this would seem to confirm what many of us have expected: that
Hillary Clinton is going to be the DLC’s
favorite choice for the 2008 nomination. That is too bad. I have
never had any problems with Hillary Clinton. Indeed, I defend her
from Republican attacks regularly. But this apparent connection to
the DLC is something I find very
disturbing. Let me just go ahead and spell out
my problem with the
DLC.
I have tended to
agree with those who have suggested that the Democratic Party was
actually hurt more—in the long
run—by Bill Clinton’s Presidency than it was helped by
it. The evidence is plentiful. Under the guidance and direction of
the DLC, the Democratic Party has now lost
control of not just the federal government, but also most state &
local governments. No, the DLC has not
been dictating all of the actions of every Democrat, but they do
wield so much influence (especially with $$) within the party, they
have been able to successfully “moderate” the political message that
the Democratic Party has wrapped its identity around. Unfortunately,
the only success of any significance that the DLC
can point to over the past dozen years was Bill Clinton’s election
and re-election. In the end, Bill Clinton’s Presidency was actually
a personal
achievement, not an achievement of the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately,
Bill Clinton and his cohort at the DLC are
profoundly mistaken in their belief that Clinton’s success was due
to his “centrist” positions on the issues. Democrats who tried to
run on Clinton’s centrist agenda were regularly swept away by
Republican candidates throughout the Clinton Era. The only reason
why his centrist positions helped to get him elected is because he
was able to deftly take away the
ammunition his
opponents were depending on to define him in a negative way. By
eliminating distinctions between himself and his Republican
opponent, he was able to reduce the choice for voters to “Who do you
want for your President? Him or me?” With his charm, he was the
obvious choice for many. As many have pointed out, the only problem
with this approach is that you can only agree with your opponent for
tactical reasons so many times before you actually
become your opponent.
Bill
Clinton
is a great, great guy. How can anyone not like him? His charm
reminds me of the 1980’s, when I would listen to one of Reagan’s
State of the Union speeches and say, “You know, he even makes
me want to believe what
he’s saying, and I know that
everything he just said is 100% wrong.” The comparison
to Reagan is apt. I predict that one day historians will agree that
Bill Clinton was truly a far greater Political Personality than
Ronald Reagan ever was. He was/is every bit the equal of Ronald
Reagan when it comes to personal charm, and that is saying a lot.
But Bill Clinton was/is also extremely intelligent—in a
book-learning sort of way—while Reagan regularly turned to The
Reader’s Digest for incisive analysis of the issues. There is no
doubt in my mind that Bill Clinton would have easily trounced Ronald
Reagan if they had been matched up against each other at the same
time. Charming & Intelligent vs. Charming & Amiable Dunce.
My impression of
Senator Hillary Clinton thus far is that she does not posses the
kind of extraordinary gifts of personal charm that her husband
possesses. We may not see another politician with Bill’s
extraordinary gifts for several generations. Without the
extraordinary charisma that her husband possesses, I don’t think she
would have any chance to prevail against the Republican onslaught
when it comes. In the absence of extraordinary charm, a Democratic
politician can only win against
The Republican Nemesis with
passion and
palpable conviction.
That’s not something I see in Senator Clinton. Nothing would please
me more than to see her blossom into a passionate advocate of
economic justice, but I’m not holding my breath (because of the
connection to the DLC).
Right now, I see
the DLC as a third political party that is
trying to take over the apparatus of the Traditional Democratic
Party. I do not think they are evil, but I do believe they are
misguided. I maintain a very vague hope that they will one day wake
up to the realities that most Traditional Democrats can see clearly.
I still lament the lost opportunity that I believe Democrats had
during the Clinton Era, but did not exploit. I’m convinced that with
his special gifts, Bill Clinton could have re-popularized
traditional Democratic values, in much the same way that Ronald
Reagan was able to sell Swing Voters on a conservative agenda that
actually offered nothing to Average Americans. Unfortunately, his
political instincts led him to embrace short-term tactical victories
over long-term success. He
could still do it for us today, but I fear that it may
now be far too important to him to defend the “centrism” that he
wrapped his identity around for so many years, in the mistaken
belief that being “consistent” is more important than being right.
Too bad for us.
More trenchant
political analysis by James Kroeger:
Hillary, Bill, & the DLC
Reclaim the Moral High Ground
Democrat Image Makeover
When
the
Republicans steal an election
Our Soldiers Are Victims
Are You Proud To Be An American?
Economic Analysis...
Unemployment: Our Greatest Enemy
Trade Policy
and Jobs
Universal
Health Care
Government
Bureaucratic Waste vs. Private Sector Efficiency
The Relationship Between Savings &
Investment
Do Tax Cuts Stimulate The Economy?
