I wouldn’t hire this guy to defend me, because he makes pathetic arguments. But I am just going to focus one one of them. He cites Dick Morris on the meaning of triangulation:
“The essence of triangulation is to use your party’s solutions to solve the other side’s problems. Use your tools to fix their car.” Clinton, Morris shows, adopted the longstanding conservative goal of welfare reform as a top item on the Democratic agenda, but developed progressive policies, including higher funding for child care and stronger financial support for working families, to pursue that goal.
Armando perfectly makes my point about what triangulation is, and what it is not. For Morris, it is about solving your opponent’s problems. In other words, it’s about adopting their agenda. And that is precisely the distinction I am making between ordinary horse-trading in the service of your own agenda and triangulation. It’s there, right from the right-wing Clinton analyst’s mouth.
I will add one additional gripe with Armando’s post. He claims that the Democrats’ fortunes improved as a result of triangulation (or, at least, he strongly implies that). Yes, he acknowledges that Clinton’s second term had a robust economy, but he seems to downplay that. But, I’d argue that Clinton left office with a very weak party in his wake. I’d argue that the liberal base of the party had atrophied to a dangerous degree and that they were demoralized. Don’t forget how narrowly Gore defeated Bill Bradley in New Hampshire, or that Gore selected Lieberman as his running-mate. Don’t forget that the country nearly elected an idiot instead of Gore, who should have won in a walk even with the burden of Monica Lewinsky hanging around his neck. I thought it was almost an article of faith among progressives that Howard Dean revived a slumbering progressive base in this country that had been put to sleep by DLC bullshit.
