Not only do Al From and Bruce Reed confirm their obsequious status here but they lie by omission and commission in the following. It’s baffling why these two refuse to be honest and forthright yet expect others to get in line and march under the DLC banner.
Rather than shun him, Democrats should take a page from Bill Clinton
By Al From and Bruce Reed
June 19, 2006
As the 2006 and 2008 elections loom ever nearer, Democrats are racking their brains for a political philosophy that can return the party to power. Everywhere, we hear the same lament: If only Democrats had a proven formula for winning elections and governing the country.
Fortunately, we do: It’s called Clintonism.
By any logical standard, Democrats of every stripe ought to be embracing Clintonism and its central tenets — providing people with more opportunity while demanding more responsibility, and being willing to try new methods to realize progressive ideals. As an instrument of progress, it’s beyond compare. Just recall its achievements: record budget surpluses, rising incomes, more than 22 million new jobs, millions leaving welfare and poverty for work.
As a political formula, its record is just as impressive. Not only was Bill Clinton the first Democratic president in 60 years to be re-elected, but consider this: In the three elections before 1992, Democrats averaged 58 electoral votes. In 1992 and 1996, Clinton averaged 375. He won a dozen “red states” twice.
So why haven’t Democratic elites embraced Clintonism — particularly after the ill-fated campaigns of 2000 and 2004, when party nominees who shied away from it didn’t carry a single Southern state? Unfortunately, some in our party never accepted Clinton’s willingness to challenge orthodoxy to achieve progressive ends on welfare reform, fiscal responsibility, crime and trade.
And perversely, many in the party have also held Clinton’s enormous political success against him. Precisely because he was so popular — leaving office with a 66 percent approval rating in the Gallup poll — they assume he must have betrayed Democratic principles along the way.
Not so. Clinton won handily because he reconnected the Democratic Party to the principles that had made it a majority party in the first place: Andrew Jackson’s credo of opportunity for all, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s thirst for innovation and John F. Kennedy’s ethic of mutual responsibility. He put forward the most ambitious Democratic agenda since Lyndon B. Johnson, and the most broadly successful one since FDR.
Clintonism has never been about mushy compromise and electoral expedience. From the beginning, it has been a tough-minded attempt to modernize liberalism and solve the nation’s problems. Today, Democratic governors and legislatures nationwide are applying its principles in new initiatives to reinvent government, reform high school education and promote college.
If Democrats win in 2006 and 2008, the party will need Clintonism more than ever. The problems President Bush will leave behind, from deep deficits to a calamitous foreign policy, cry out for the bold pragmatism Clinton pioneered.
Democrats ought not bury Clintonism. If we’re smart, we’ll write its second act.
Okay, where to begin:
“…providing people with more opportunity while demanding more responsibility, and being willing to try new methods to realize progressive ideals.”
What From and Reed deliberately chose to leave out is any mention whatsoever of greater corporate responsibility in the equation they discuss. Oh that’s right, they want to replace all the Republicans currently dipping into the K Street corporate honeypots with their own selections. With jobs streaming overseas via out-sourcing and pensions being negated due to bankruptcy, just what are From’s and Reed’s progressive ideals for Joe and Josephine America? More of NAFTA? Oh yeah, that’s a winning ticket. Hell, even Hillary Clinton, the darling of From and Reed, voted against CAFTA. I guess Hillary needs more Clintonism.
“…So why haven’t Democratic elites embraced Clintonism — particularly after the ill-fated campaigns of 2000 and 2004, when party nominees who shied away from it didn’t carry a single Southern state? Unfortunately, some in our party never accepted Clinton’s willingness to challenge orthodoxy to achieve progressive ends on welfare reform, fiscal responsibility, crime and trade…”
What From and Reed deliberately chose to leave out is that there was absolutely nothing John Kerry could have done to win any of the southern states. He could have draped himself in a Confederate flag and sung “Dixie”–it wouldn’t have changed a thing electorally in the southern states. And what exactly do From and Reed have against Al Gore? Gore, as vice president, was part of the administration that changed welfare. Gore has never decried fiscal responsibility. Is Al Gore a criminal coddler? These are simply phantom charges.
“…And perversely, many in the party have also held Clinton’s enormous political success against him. Precisely because he was so popular — leaving office with a 66 percent approval rating in the Gallup poll — they assume he must have betrayed Democratic principles along the way…”
What are From and Reed smoking? Who holds Bill Clinton’s popularity against him besides the Republicans?
“…Clintonism has never been about mushy compromise and electoral expedience…”
From and Reed need to be much more careful about using the word ‘never.’ The Clinton Administration was (in)famous for political reaction to polling and focus groups reactions on any number of subjects.
“…The problems President Bush will leave behind, from deep deficits to a calamitous foreign policy, cry out for the bold pragmatism Clinton pioneered…”
I’m not sure when From and Reed consider history beginning but to credit Bill Clinton, and only Bill Clinton, for bold pragmatism, is amazingly myopic.Get thee to an optometrist.
In form and substance of governance, From and Reed are bedmates of Tom DeLay. They want the Democratic Party to become the new darlings of K Street. Their modus operandi is government policy dictated via corporate contributions.
This is not, has never been and will never be part of any progressive ideals.
