Here, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman takes a look at the comparison between what Obama is saying about Unity now, and what Bill Clinton ran on in 1992.
But more importantly, Krugman does a great job interrogating the promise of Unification in the first place--That is, the illusory idea of a man who, on the basis of his passion, intellect, and sheer coolness shall get us beyond the "old divides."
The column rocks. Harrogate's favorite part:
Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.
This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.
For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it’s worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.
First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).
The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.
Notice the substantive difference, BTW, between what Krugman describes, when he points out that the "bitter partisanship wasn't a result of anything the Clintons did," and the political discourse we have seen since 2000.
Despite the idiotic monicker "BDS" propogated first throughout Talk Radio Land and then Cable News and now, sadly, increasingly, into the popular lexicon, all without the slightest actual referent in reality:
Yea, contary to the myth of "BDS," disgust with the Republican Party and its Hallowed Spokesman has been the result of neither more nor less than their policies.
2 comments:
In keeping up with the dialogue and debate, I will take the bait. Krugman's editorial is interesting, mainly as a deflection of reality rather than a reflection of reality.
But here is rhetorical analysis of his case and nothing more.
Krugman's article relies on the rhetorical commonplace that “the future will be like the past.” When speakers use this topos they attempt to demonstrate that though people have the capacity to change, they will not. With this in mind, let's review his argument.
First, "partisanship occurred and themes of unity by Clinton accomplished nothing." According to this view, partisanship is strictly a part of the republican ideology. Yet, this can be true only so long as you decontextualize the Clinton presidency and what occurred in American politics during the twentieth century. The future will be like the past, for Krugman, only as long as he narrows the past in a way that deflects away from how politics works.
Politics, like any academic discipline, is reactionary. One movement occurs because of the perceived failings of the previous movement. This is how we develop the topoi “A philosophy occurs in relation to Plato,” or “All sociology to Thomas Hobbes,” etc.
The recent Conservative movement, which began with the Goldwater loss in 1964 and emerged in the 1980s, was a reaction to the New Deal, The Great Society, and the Warren Court. During this 40+ year span, there was partisanship and consensus. The recent partisanship developed during the 1990s, as conservatives became furious with the George H.W. Bush loss (the end of the Reagan era), as well the partisan nature of Iran Contra (as constitutional questions are partisan), and the nominations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. To see the extent of partisan ideology, remember the Clarence Thomas hearings: the belief as to whether or not Thomas committed sexual harassment against Anita Hill correlates to party affiliation. Whether or not the attacks on Robert Bork were fair and justified depends on your view of the constitution, the “rights” in the constitution, and the proper method of constitutional interpretation. Yet, while the Democrats possessed the opportunity to engage in partisanship and ideology at the end of the 1980s and 1990s, the Republicans did not have that chance until the first Clinton term.
For Krugman to claim that the partisanship in the 1990s was purely Republican may be true, so long as you do not think about the historical circumstances. Or, another way to express this, if you narrow the scope of the historical exigence you could argue that the Republicans initiated the partisanship. However, with the historical context of the 1980s, Krugman's premise does not hold true.
Because of these instances of ideology on behalf of the Democrats, the partisanship in the early 1990s occurred because the Republicans gained power and desired some revenge.
Second, the notion of “the future will be like the past” depends on how well things stay the same. We know that there are many differences between Obama 08 (if he were to win the nomination and the presidency—and I am not arguing he will—) and Clinton 92:
a.) While the G.W. Bush presidency is a failure on the grounds of foreign and domestic policy, George H.W. Bush failed only on domestic policy. While there is not a lot of support for #43 now, there was support for #42. In 2008, fewer people support the Bush admin than they did in 1992.
b.) Generally speaking, while some conservatives support Obama’s character and not policy, conservatives did not support Clinton in 1992, either in terms of character or policy. While Obama voted against the war (which may have been the correct vote, even to Conservatives), they did not like the deferrals and the pot smoking in replace of the military. In this sense, there is a respect for Obama from conservatives that people did not have for Clinton, which may mean that bi-partisan slip is possible.
c.) In 2008, Obama will not have the leaders of the “Republican Revolution” that Clinton faced and lost to in 1994. Obama will not have to face Delay, Gingrich, Hassert, at el. And the shutdown of the Federal Government.
d.) Support for a Universal Health Care was not as high as it is today. Even Republicans running (Romney) support versions of it. Clinton never had this support and, further, to delegate it to someone who was unelectable and unaccountable to the people was a mistake (This holds true for the abuses of power by Cheney.) (Also, if the “future is like the past” than the memories of Hillary and Health Care will not help her. It will be an easy target for the 2008 general election.)
As these demonstrate, 2008 is not like 1992.
This means that the two conclusions Krugman reaches (that there will be partisanship and that the plan for health care matters) are not certain to happen and, in fact, the future may not be like the past. As I have suggested, the facts between then and now are quite different.
I would add one more critique of the editorial. At the end of the article, when Krugman discusses the need to have health care in place when the president arrives to office, this is another veiled Clinton Talking Point embedded within the text. This one focusing on "experience," which is a very large deflection of reality.
Yet, again, if the "future will be like the past" a Hillary Health care plan will not pass and lead to a failure in the first term, opening the door for a Republican victory during the midterms.
Now this may not be the case, but the "experience" argument contradicts his premise, "the future will be like the past."
Post a Comment