1994 and 2010: The President and the Left

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 14:36


This is the second article  in a three-part series today that compares political conditions in 1993-1994 to our current environment. I argue that the current situation is much more favorable to Democrats than the one 16 years ago-Chris

Part One: Could Dems Lose Perot Voters Again?

President Clinton's Trouble on the Left
President Clinton had remarkable difficulties with the left-wing of his own party. In mid-1993, 15% of the country, or about 75% of all self-identified liberals, thought that Bill Clinton was "too conservative." The percentage of Americans viewing the Democratic Party as "too conservative" also reached an all-time high during Clinton's first term, rising to between 12-13% according to Gallup.

Clinton also had real problems with labor. In 1992, union households made up 18% of the electorate, a percentage which dropped to 14% in 1994. Once again, this likely had a lot to do with NAFTA, which in retrospect seems like the worst political move Democrats have made in decades.

Neither labor nor self-identified liberals were very happy with Clinton. The result was depressed turnout in 1994, which contributed to the Republican victory.

Obama Doing Better With the Left
Right now, only 8% of the country thinks that President Obama, and the Democratic Party, are too conservative. Those numbers are significantly better for the President and the party than at this point 16 years ago.

Possible Trouble Points?
Even though President Obama and the Democratic Party have a better ideological image with the American left than President Clinton and the Democratic Party had 16 years ago, there are still some potential trouble spots.

For one thing, Democrats don't appear particularly motivated to vote right now. Recent polling in Virginia for the upcoming Governor's race shows likely voters in 2009 favored John McCain by 9-11% in 2008. Given that President Obama won Virginia by 6.30% in 2008, that represents a 15-17% swing just from enthusiasm and projected turnout. That could easily result in a repeat of 1994.

Also, while it is not currently very high on the national list of priorities, a CNN poll released yesterday showed that three-quarters of all Democrats "oppose the war in Afghanistan." If the economy recovers, and if the situation in Afghanistan remains stagnates or gets worse, Afghanistan will quickly rise on the list of national priorities. At that time, President Obama could start facing Clinton-level problems from the left.

Passing a strong health care bill is probably the best insurance President Obama has against future left-wing depression. Clinton might have been OK if he had been able to do that. However, the Democratic failure to reform the health care system, combined with NAFTA, apparently caused a lot of people to decide there wasn't a reason to bother (not mention lowered his approval ratings overall). It is essential that the failure of 1994 not be repeated in 2009.

Chris Bowers :: 1994 and 2010: The President and the Left

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
1994 and 2010: The President and the Left | 57 comments
This sums it up (4.00 / 7)
"Passing a strong health care bill is probably the best insurance President Obama has against future left-wing depression."

Question is: what will President Obama do when the Congress sends him a bill so watered down that it does little more than provide the illusion of "getting something accomplished"?

Will he veto, or cave?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

he'll cave ... (4.00 / 4)
... hell he's already caved to big pharma and has encouraged them to negotiate with baucus.

Z

[ Parent ]
He's convinced (4.00 / 3)
that he can convince us that he hasn't caved, IMHO.  I think he's overestimating his power over his supporters and former supporters though.

Get ready for a lot of fanfare and spintastic talk about what a great deal we're getting, both from Pres. Obama and Congressional leaders.

[ Parent ]
Part of their strategy to sell us out while keeping their big donors happy ... (0.00 / 0)
.. is to put off enacting universal healthcare until 2013.  Then we'll be caught between a choice of voting for a republican in '12 who may repeal it or the pope of hope.  And we won't even fully know how it will all work out.   There is no other reason to put off universal healthcare until 2013 but to help the rahmbama team get reelected.   In the meantime, thousands of people will die for his selfishness. What a f'ing scumbag!!!!    

Z  

[ Parent ]
Well there's (0.00 / 0)
the fact that 2013 was the earliest date they can enact it while making it deficit neutral, but don't let that get in the way of your grand conspiracy theory.  
[ Parent ]
Y exactly does it have 2 B deficit neutral? (0.00 / 0)
Who allowed or created those parameters?

Z

[ Parent ]
A bill passed through reconciliation has to be revenue neutral (0.00 / 0)
So a bill that is passed with 51 votes must be revenue neutral.
[ Parent ]
Because otherwise (0.00 / 0)
reconciliation would be off the table, never mind that the public wants to scrap the whole thing if it's not.

next question?

[ Parent ]
the public wants a lot of things that they don't get ... (0.00 / 0)
... so don't pull the "they're just doing what the public wants" bullshit.  If the majority of the public is to the left of corporate america on an issue it never gets what it wants unless the right also happens to want it that way ... and then only on rare occasions.  Social security privatization would be an example of this.  The left never wins if the right and corporate america are against it on an issue no matter what amount of the majority of the public is to the left.

Z

[ Parent ]
The public also isn't that bothered by torture (0.00 / 0)
So clearly, Eric Holder would be wasting his time and disrespecting the public will if he went after torturers and their enablers.

What, he's not going to do that anyway? What a true champion of the people he is!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
EXACTLY. Who chose to go that route? the dems did! (0.00 / 0)
It seemed to be the best route to go at the time, but it's looking more and more like the dems are going to sell us out to the insurance companies anyway and this maneuver just made it easier for them to do so.

I'd have preferred to have gone the route Barnie Sanders suggested:  Try to get together all the dem senators to vote against a filibuster and then bring the bill to the floor for a majority vote.  There would have been no need for it to be budget neutral and we wouldn't have to wait until '13 to get universal healthcare.  And it would have exposed the pompous dem bastards that are acting to neutralize the dem party's 60 vote caucus in the senate.  

Z

[ Parent ]
We've got a new species of mouth-breathing mammal in this country ... (0.00 / 0)
... the anti-conspiracy nut that thinks things just continually happen all on their own and they just happen to accidentally always fall in big business' favor.

Z

[ Parent ]
Oh no (0.00 / 0)
things don't just happen and accidentally fall in big business' favor, that's how the people in this country want it.

Wake up and look around you...your in a conservative right wing country.

[ Parent ]
Not really. (4.00 / 5)
That myth has been debunked repeatedly.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
LOL! (0.00 / 0)
Wake up and look around you...your in a conservative right wing country.

if that was the case the country wouldn't have:
1. a 60/40 D Senate AND
2. a 260/180 D House AND
3. a 365/175 D president

what this country has is a very big corporate influence

[ Parent ]
Oh yeah (0.00 / 0)
because we know all Democratic voters are liberal.  
[ Parent ]
Oh yeah (0.00 / 0)
because we know all Democratic voters are liberal.  
[ Parent ]
did I said that anywhere? (0.00 / 0)
nope
[ Parent ]
Yeah actually you did (0.00 / 0)
you said if we weren't a conservative country, we wouldn't have a Democratic majority?

Why not? Many Democrats in Congress ran as conservatives. Obama is apparently a center-right President, or so I've heard around here.

[ Parent ]
no I did not (4.00 / 1)
1. if you think I did show me the quote where I say 'elected democrats=liberals'

if I did say that I'd think that nelson, baucus, and lincoln are liberals. I'm not stupid!

you are the one that said:

Wake up and look around you...your in a conservative right wing country.

2.

Obama is apparently a center-right President, or so I've heard around here.

as you know too well, I don't run this blog nor do I'm one of the front-page writers, I'm just a commenter

you would like to attribute to me the opinions of others, it doesn't work that way!

3. so in this exchange you've made two fabrications: one, that I equated elected dems to liberals, and two that what things said on this blog can be attributed to me

what'll be your next fabrication?

[ Parent ]
That obama ran as a center-right candidate who would keep in place many of bush's policies ... (0.00 / 0)
... and that is why he won?

Z

[ Parent ]
Put me in with that 8% (4.00 / 7)
"Right now, only 8% of the country thinks that President Obama, and the Democratic Party, are too conservative."

This number would be much higher if we had a better informed populace because the pope of hope is more conservative than the majority of the people who consider themselves democrats ... and so is the party that purports to represent them.

Z

We need a populist president (4.00 / 4)
In times like these, we need a populist president.  It couldn't be more clear, except to everyone inside the DC bubble.  And talking populism but acting corporatist won't cut it.
[ Parent ]
Yes indeed (0.00 / 0)
a President who follows the will of the people;

Voters say 59 - 36 percent that Congress should not pass health care reform if only Democratic members support it.

oh, hey, look at that.

[ Parent ]
And where is that poll from? .. (4.00 / 1)
and did anyone tell the respondents that the Republicans don't want shit to pass? ..  because to me .. that poll just shows more cognitive disonance
[ Parent ]
Quinnipiac (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Thanks!!! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
More Fatuous Horserace Talk (4.00 / 2)
Who's doing what to whom is important to apparatchiks, I suppose, and arguably important to the rest of us who are less directly engaged, whether we realize it or not. Still, I make no apology for thinking that Obama's destiny depends not so much on how much kissing up he does to the left as on whether or not he understands that the Chosen One actually has to accomplish something.

If he doesn't, it won't matter what we think. It won't matter what anyone thinks.

Disagree (4.00 / 2)
Not enough to "accomplish something", the "something" that is accomplished has to actually deal with the problems at hand. So far, the "reform" part of Healthcare Reform seems little more than an illusion. But, of course, "something" will be accomplished and celebrations will be held.

But, it is thinking like this that keeps me on the fringes of our political system, perhaps.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
You aren't disagreeing (or, for what it's worth, being disagreeable.) (4.00 / 3)
The problem is that I wasn't specific enough. What I meant by something appears to be pretty much what you mean by it. If he isn't willing to lead a serious assault on the status quo which is killing us as a nation, he doesn't deserve to have followers. Doing so isn't a matter of intellect, but a matter of resolve. If he had it, he'd be hip-deep in allies, yours truly among them.
[ Parent ]
I figured as much (4.00 / 1)
But that phrase, "do something", really gets to me.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
But as I see it (4.00 / 2)
The only kind of "kissing up to the left" that we're interested in is the kind that leads to passing a strong progressive agenda. No serious person on the left wants, needs or expects Obama to go around wearing a Paul Wellstone t-shirt and shouting "fight the power!" with fists thrown up high. We don't need no stinkin' kisses. What the left wants is for him to pass genuinely progressive bills, reverse 40 years of conservative dominance, and complete the New Deal--or as close to it as is currently possible. Or, at the very least, to just TRY to do these things. But he's doing neither, which is what upsets the left, not the lack of superficial gestures of solidarity (although, it would be nice if he didn't feel the need to constantly reinfoce RW memes and take cheap pot shots at the left).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
That means .. (4.00 / 4)
It is essential that the failure of 1994 not be repeated in 2009.

either Obama whips Mad Max into shape next month ... and quick .. or else there will be trouble .. and half-ass bills won't do it .. that means Obama must put pressure on the DLC/Blue Dog cowards ... but if 1994 does repeat itself .. it will be solely on Obama and Congress

If you want a silver lining (4.00 / 3)
I have noticed Baucus is tone change since the gang of six met with Obama at the WH the other day. Up until then, Baucus has been Mr Sunny Optimist, saying definetively we will work together with republicans for a bipartisan bill, and always stating as if its a foregone conclusion. He's been completely dismissive of Reid and other committee chairmen in the senate when he was sked about deadlines, he would say we'll get it done when we get it done.

But after the WH meeting, he said 2 things that struck as me interesting and probably a window, and a positive development, into what was said between Obama and the gang of six. Post-meeting, Baucus said (paraphrasing) everyone in the room  wants healthcare reform even though they have different ideas on how to get there. Thats basically saying there were irreconcilable differences in the meeting. The second, and more important, thing he said was he can't wait for republicans forever and will eventually have to move without them if they don't mske progress and get a deal soon. He then reiterated that a couple of more times since the meeting to reinforce that message. Considering Baucus' love for all things bipartisan, him talking this way is, imo, evidence of a)lack of progress on reaching a compromise with Grassley, Enzi, Snowe and b)him starting to feel the squeeze from Democratic leadership.

The face that Baucus has run into a brick wall on the compromise should come as no surprise. It's ludicrous to believe that a true compromise could be reached with Grassley and Enzi in the first place. These guys are not moderates by any stretch, and everytime they've come on the cable shows they have not showed any hint on willing to compromise and have been spending more time issuuing threats on killing the bill as opposed to promoting the what they're trying to work towards.  

[ Parent ]
Baucus is doing his bidding (4.00 / 2)
The Baucus bill is the White House bill.

Wait and see how close it will be to the Daschle, Baker, Dole, Mitchell bill. (Even though Baucus and Daschle are sworn enemies).

[ Parent ]
It all comes down to healthcare (4.00 / 3)
It's such a massive undertaking that liberal democrats will view Obama, for ill or for good, through the prism of the healthcare fight. Now if a bill passes both houses and is signed by Obama, liberals/progressives, for the most part, will initially be jubilant because it's been the white whale for democrats and passing legislation, HOWEVER, ultimately his standing with liberals on this issue will hinge on the makeup of the bill, and not solely on passage.

Once the initial euphoria for health reform passing wears off, and that may happen as soon as 2010 and definetely by 2012, liberals will start viewing the bill for what it is, because, unlike conservatives, liberals are(mostly) cause driven and don't view political victories and an end all to themselves. So we'll check to see if the public option box is ticked, if the drug pricing reform box is ticked, if the hardship and low income subsidies box is ticked...and so forth. Depending on how the final bill fares in those areas, liberals will decide whether Obama passed "healthcare reform" or HEALTHCARE REFORM.  

It all comes down to health care? (0.00 / 0)
That is why we fail.

Health care is something paid for out of surplus. The decisive issue is the non-service economy which creates the surplus, and the non-service economy really depends on energy.

Energy. Energy. Energy. Energy. Energy. Energy.

[ Parent ]
Really amazing (0.00 / 0)
That 75% of liberals thought Clinton was too conservative in what, by all accounts, are widely considered to be his two most progressive years in office. Does that result, you think, from Don't Ask Don't Tell (announced July 19, 1993) and NAFTA?


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter
I think by the time Clinton (4.00 / 7)
ran for re-election in 1996, liberals knew what they were getting and had no illusions of passing progressive legislation. He was viewed as the last thing standing between the nut jobs controlling the entire federal government. The complete insanity of Gingrich and company shielded Clinton from criticism coming from his left, and non-conservatives in general.  During his second term he consistently maintained a 55%+ approval rating, and actually a bump during impeachment. From shutting down government to impeachment, Gingrich and co made Clinton look like Lincoln and FDR rolled into one, lol.  
[ Parent ]
clinton was never very popular ... deservedly IMO (0.00 / 0)
He never won more the majority of the vote even when he ran as the incumbent against bob dole and a much weakened Perot in '96 with all the campaign dollars that he sold us out for by supporting, and promoting, pro-corporate bills like nafta.

I hate bill clinton.  I think he was a terrible president.  bush was 1,000 times worse of course.  I think obama may end up being worse than clinton.  I'm beginning to think that we may have been better off with hillary than obama and I never thought I'd write that ... especially after only 6 months.

Z

[ Parent ]
clinton was never very popular ... deservedly IMO (0.00 / 0)
He never won more the majority of the vote even when he ran as the incumbent against bob dole and a much weakened Perot in '96 with all the campaign dollars that he sold us out for by supporting, and promoting, pro-corporate bills like nafta.

I hate bill clinton.  I think he was a terrible president.  bush was 1,000 times worse of course.  I think obama may end up being worse than clinton.  I'm beginning to think that we may have been better off with hillary than obama and I never thought I'd write that ... especially after only 6 months.

Z

[ Parent ]
LOL FAIL (0.00 / 0)
In his entire second term, Clinton never dropped below 50% approval;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

[ Parent ]
Approval ratings and popularity are two different species fool (0.00 / 0)
He was so damn popular that the more he got involved in his wife's campaign ... who was heavily favored ... the worse she did.  It certainly is not the only reason she lost, but his "popularity" certainly didn't help her either.

Z

[ Parent ]
Approval ratings and popularity are two different species fool (0.00 / 0)
He was so damn popular that the more he got involved in his wife's campaign ... who was heavily favored ... the worse she did.  It certainly is not the only reason she lost, but his "popularity" certainly didn't help her either.

Z

[ Parent ]
Don't forget ... (0.00 / 0)
that Clinton also signed what Wellstone considered his(meaning Wellstone's .. since he voted for it) greatest mistake ... that POS called DOMA
[ Parent ]
Liberals (4.00 / 1)
I think liberals were looking forward to sweeping changes following 12 years of Reagan, which was the longest one party tenure since FDR-Truman. When Clinton failed to deliver, the liberal vote was depressed in 1994.

Which really did hurt in 1994: The 34 House incumbents that lost in 1994 were not the Dixiecrats that opposed Clinton (Those the left mostly retired in '94 or '96), but the Democrats that supported Clinton on some of the tougher votes.

Of the 34 House Incumbents that lost in 1994:
27 supported the Budget Bill, 7 opposed
29 supported the Crime Bill (w/AWB), 5 opposed.

22 supported Clinton on both, the remaining 12 supported on one. None opposed Clinton on both.

However, the group split 16-18 on NAFTA.  

[ Parent ]
Looks to me its over (4.00 / 2)
I'm coming face to face with the fact that the Obama administration is headed to disaster if its not already there.  Since he refuses to fight for anything and only seems concerned with placating Republicans I've lost all hope that anything will happen.

He's already thrown the lesbians and gays under the bus the next to go are those interested in real health care reform. The environment will soon follow. He was a giant mistake.  All that is left to do now is watch the disaster unfold.

There is still a lot of time (0.00 / 0)
to make up for early mistakes.  The question is does he have the political will, is he willing to take the risks, and will he have enough political capital left to do the things he needs to do?  And my biggest question is -- what does he really believe in?  Is this him we're seeing or is this his establishment advisors and Congressional weasels?

I agree that it's looking like he was a big mistake.  We needed a really tough president who didn't care very much about maintaining friendships with everyone.

[ Parent ]
The problem isn't time (4.00 / 1)
The problem is, as you fear, a lack of guts and will. I.e. does he have the courage to do the things that he needs to do to make the things that he needs to make happen, happen--and perhaps just as important, does he have the interest in making these things happen? I fear that he lacks both, that he's just another political ego case pretending to be a progressive, and that we're saddled with him until the next opportunity comes around in 10-20 years.

I see both Carter and Clinton in him, Carter for the lack of political spine and skill, Clinton for the lack of political spine and interest. When instead we needed a Lincoln, FDR and LBJ (at least on domestic policy). He just doesn't seem to genuinely care. He talks a good game, but I just don't feel that he really cares. It's all an academic exercize to him, divorced from human reality, that'll suck if he loses it, but which won't be the end of the world for him.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
The choice we had in November (4.00 / 5)
was between the slow train to corporate dictatorship and the express.

The slow train is better -- it gives us time to fight back, if we're willing.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Good analogy (4.00 / 1)
I'd hoped that this wasn't the actual choice we had, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that it was. A mean, crazy and corrupt moron who would have completed Bush and Cheney's project to destroy America, or a telegenic corporate lobbyist pretending to be the president, but who was at least smart, competent and disciplined enough to not let the country go off a cliff.

I.e. between an empire that self-destructed, and an empire that was tenable--for now.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Yep, if health care and climate/energy get done... (4.00 / 1)
This year, and get done right, then Democrats will probably survive 2010 quite well. But if nothing happens or HR 3200 and ACESA get severely weakened and only skeletons of their former selves pass, don't expect the progressive base to save Democrats' hide next year. It's as simple as that.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
I think that the risk is even greater now (4.00 / 2)
than it was in '93 for a significant percentage of Democrats and Independents to follow a decent third party candidate.  I think Obama is in big trouble.  It doesn't surprise me that he is, but it does surprise me that it happened so quickly.

Whoever was elected in '08 was expected to hit the ground running and to make some real changes really quickly.  With majorities in both houses and a lot of power, it should have been possible.  He didn't want to take the risks that were required to match his big promises and frankly, he's fundamentally not doing what he said he would do, he's no longer opposed to things he was opposed to during the election, and the blowback is building up.

He's smart enough to have known (4.00 / 1)
how hard it would be to do these things, and yet he ran anyway, on the promise of doing these things if he won--or at least trying his best to do them, since we all know how hard they are to do. And now he's not doing these things, under the guise of "pragmatism". When, in reality, he's not doing these things because he probably never intended to do them, and even if he did, he doesn't have the political courage and skills to do them.

I think that in the end, he ran because it seemed like a cool thing to do, a bunch of people put him up to it, he needed to compensate for his huge loss to Rush and the fool's errand that he need it was, and he wanted to see if he had what it took to win. Ok, and perhaps on some level, he really did buy into his hype about being the next Lincoln and FDR combined and how he would "change everything". It was an ego thing, not a statesman thing.

Of course, the bots respond that it's only been X months, political realities are anti-reform these days, he's accomplished so much so far, blah blah blah. None of which explains why he's done so much so far that's indisputibly anti-reform, that he didn't have to. Like, flip-flop on FISA, aggressively persue Bush's national security and anti-civil liberties policies in the courts, cave to Pharma on drug price negotiation, allow the public option to wither away slowly, etc. Whether due to cowardice or lack of interest, he's not the man he ran as.

I think it's both, that ultimately he just doesn't care that much about these policies, and that even if he did, he doesn't have the guts and skills to make them happen. He's got this whole "legend in his own mind" thing going on, that substitutes image for reality. That's why he gives 2-3 speeches a day instead of letting his subordinates give them. In his mind, he needs to be out there convincing the public, and especially himself, that he's leading, when in reality he's just caving, right and left, and pretending to lead.

An increasingly big disappointment on the BIG issues. Which is why, most likely, we'll have to contend ourselves with decent achievements on the secondary issues--at best. Not that they're insignificant, e.g. SCHIP, Ledbetter, etc., but they're not why we elected him. He likely won't be a terrible president, but he'll also likely not be anywhere near as great a president as we'd hoped, and needed. The problem with Obama isn't that he's another Bush--he's not--but that he's not living up to his promise and potential, or doing the things that we need done (and doing some other things that we do not need done).

I've taken to calling him a punk. I.e. a pretender, who talks a good game but them falls flat on his feet in action, because he lacks the balls, skills, or both.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Yep, that was me (0.00 / 0)
Clinton might have been OK ...However, the Democratic failure to reform the health care system, combined with NAFTA, apparently caused a lot of people to decide there wasn't a reason to bother.

And everyone outside of DC knew there was going to be a huge loss: 1994 was no surprise at all. I knew they were going to swing, and I knew they deserved it.

Any sane leftist should be willing to go to the scaffold FOR Obama (0.00 / 0)
I will criticize and praise Obama / the "Dems" as I see fit.

And I encourage others to do the same.

But this idea that we would take our ball and go home?

HELL NO!

The threat to 1789 is real.

The threat to life and limb is real.

People need to get that.

Agree: Abandoning Obama is Wrong (0.00 / 0)
I've read with interest this post and all the comments. I share much of the dissatisfaction with Obama, though I'd refrain from talking about a lack of skill. I think he's lacking courage.

Anyway, check out this excellent article posted on Open Left back in April. The NEW DEAL came into being later in FDR's presidency and ONLY WITH THE HELP of PROGRESSIVES

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

1994 and 2010: The President and the Left | 57 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox