Analyzing "Clintonism"...Honestly

Former Kerry aide Andrei Cherny has a piece in the New Republic that desperately - and quite ineffectively - tries to make the case for Democrats to return to an ethereal thing called "Clintonism." I put "Clintonism" in quotes because I think Cherny tries way too hard - and falls very short - in making the case that Clinton's record constitutes a "ism" that should - or even can - be followed as a bedrock ideology for the Democratic Party in the future.

If Clinton espoused anything, it was the need to have a deft sense of pragmatism and willingness to surf the political tides - skills that protected his own power and helped him achieve some good things, but certainly cannot serve as a coherent ideology for a national party. Even Cherny basically admits that, saying "if there is one central tenet of Clintonism, it is that we live in a fast-changing world, and we must forever be changing with it." Exactly, and his statement's contradiction in terms proves my point: an "ism" is defined as "a distinctive doctrine" and a "doctrine" is defined as a "principle" - something that inherently doesn't "forever change." If Clinton taught that Democrats must be forever changing, then his lessons do not constitute a real ideology, and certainly not a way back to the majority. The problem with Democrats these days is not that they change too little, it's that the public perceives them as being too willing to change their positions opportunistically for political gain.

To be sure, Clinton was a decent President (and compared to Bush, absolutely terrific). But he was anything but a movement builder. Thus, there really isn't much of a solid, replicable ideology for Democrats to return to, as much as Cherny would revise history and make us think there is. And his piece is filled with so many contradictions and questionable assertions that he essentially proves my point. Here are just a few that struck me:

- In one breath, Cherny urges Democrats to not prioritize economic issues, and instead follow Clinton's supposed "understanding of the bonds of community" which he said "was a critical part of the vision he presented to the country." Yet, a few paragraphs later, Cherny says Clinton taught that "from public schools to a failing health care system to, yes, Americans' retirement savings, Democrats need to offer a new vision of government that will put individual Americans" first. In other words, Cherny claims Clinton taught us we need to do a better job of promoting how we are all in this together (thus stressing things like public schools, Social Security, etc. that we all collectively pay for and benefit from), and then tells us Clinton taught us we supposedly need to promote "putting individual Americans" first, tacitly alluding to individual retirement accounts, private-ish health care, etc. that essentially constitute George Bush's so-called "ownership society" - the farthest thing from an "in this together" agenda (and, by the way, something I don't think Clinton actually espoused). Those two messages are contradictory and make no sense as a coherent ideology.

- Cherny lauds Clinton for thundering at those "'from Wall Street to Main Street to Mean Street' who cut corners, break the rules, and violate basic American values." He adds that Clinton "said it was time that all Americans - from corporate CEOs to congressional chieftains, from deadbeat dads to welfare moms - were held equally responsible for their actions." In some respects, Cherny's right - it was laudable that Clinton paid lipservice to these priorities, and people like New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (D) are showing how powerful it is when Democrats actually ACT on this rhetoric. But last I checked, Clinton primarily put that rhetoric into action when it came to deadbeat dads and welfare moms - not corporate CEOs or Wall Street. As just one example, take a look at tax policy. Under lax oversight by the Clinton administration, forty-one of the wealthiest companies in America reported $25.8 billion in total pre-tax profits between 1996-98, yet paid no income taxes. Then, on tax day, they received $3.2 billion in rebates. In fact, as the Los Angeles Times noted, most companies in America avoided all taxes whatsoever in the last years of Clinton's term. Sure, Clinton could argue that the GOP Congress might not have let him stop this "corner cutting" and "violation of basic American values." But he didn't spend much political capital trying – and that hurts Democrats' credibility on these issues. Clinton taught that there is power in talking about fundamental issues of economic inequality. But the more important lesson that Spitzer and others teach, is that there is even more power when Democrats are willing to act on that talk.

- Cherny likens Clinton to Teddy Roosevelt because, he says, they both "fought the powerful interests of their party." Besides the laughable comparison, Cherny and other "moderate" Democrats never explain why this is such a good thing, and why it will supposedly bring Democrats back to the majority. The Republican Party never "fights the powerful interests of their party" even though their base of corporate executives and far-right Christian conservatives are far more extreme than Democrats base of union workers, minorities and environmentalists. And last I checked Republicans are in the majority. Additionally, under Karl Rove the GOP has strengthened that majority by specifically REFUSING to wage war on their base. The opposite can be said for Democrats, who entered the minority after alienating parts of their base in pursuit of faux "centrism." After Clinton rammed NAFTA through Congress, the CEO of American Express put it best. Quoted in John R. MacArthur's "The Selling of Free Trade", the CEO proudly bragged that "[Clinton] stood up against his two prime constituents, labor and environment, to drive it home over their dead bodies." That may have been great for this corporate titan's wallet. And some "centrist" Democrats may claim this kind of behavior from a Democrat is some sort of virtue. But no one has offered any substantive explanation of why running roughshod over working people, environmentalists, and other parts of the Democratic base is considered anything but destructive to the Democratic Party in the long term? Have we really learned nothing from Karl Rove?

- According to Cherny, Clinton believed "that America's increasing global interdependence meant that the nation's entire approach to economic policy had to change radically." This is true. But what he fails to note is that Clinton was elected as an economic populist who pledged to change the nation's approach to economic policies in a way that put the interests of America's middle class above everything else. Clinton was elected as a quasi-economic populist - not the sort of super-Wall Street free trader that many of his international economic policies embodied. For instance, in a classic biting-his-bottom-lip-in-empathy moment on the 1992 campaign, Clinton promised workers he would sign free trade deals "only – only – if [trading partner countries] lifted their wage rates and their labor standards and they cleaned up their environment so we could both go up together, instead of being dragged down." He also promised that "I wouldn't have done what [the first President] Bush did and give all those trade preferences to China when they're locking their people up." Yet, once in office, those promises were gone. He pushed NAFTA and the China free trade deal - pacts devoid of any serious labor, human rights or environmental standards. Yes, Clinton changed American policy on global economic policy. But as trade-related job losses continue to mount, Democrats should be very wary of declaring these policies a perfect model for long-term success.

Towards the end of the piece, Cherny says "Democrats themselves need to think hard about the legacies and lessons of Clintonism." I agree wholeheartedly, and again, I want to be very clear: I believe Clinton did a lot of good, was a decent President, and had a lot of positive lessons to teach about rhetorical populism and the need to connect with people in a personal way. Additionally, I think there are some solid nuggets/observations in Cherny's piece.

However, if we really are to glean lessons for the future from Clinton's tenure, we must evaluate the record – good and bad – honestly; not try to mythologize a mixed legacy into sparkling legend; and be cautious of pushing the party down a ill-defined path that leaves America with the perception that Democrats' only conviction is their own survival, instead of an eagerness to stand up for the middle class at any and all political cost.