Posted on 04/13/2015 5:08:36 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
With the Big Announcement yesterday, Hillary Clinton officially entered the race that everyone assumes she’s already won. Can you feel the excitement? No? Well, this shouldn’t come as a shock, because despite all the handwringing about a primary being necessary, it’s long been obvious that the Democratic party subconsciously saw 2008 as The Big Primary when decided it would use its current national electoral advantage to bring the U.S. into the modern world and break the white male presidential paradigm with two historic candidacies. It’s important to seize these openings to advance civil rights and establish a new “normal” for leadership when you have the chance and it’s to the party’s credit that it has taken this path.
2008 was a rough-and-tumble a primary with the two candidates coming as close to a tie as has ever happened in party history. Barack Obama won fair and square, but the fact remained that a very large number of Democrats also liked Hillary Clinton and both candidates were wise enough to see that the way forward was to put away their swords and join together in his administration. It is not surprising to me that all those circumstances have made the party open to Clinton as Obama’s natural successor with few others seeing a reasonable path to victory. (None of this is to say that I wouldn’t love to see a primary fought out on ideological terms this go around — or any go around. But I can see why, in this case, it’s not happening.)
But still, it’s vital that Clinton’s campaign realizes that this is not 2008 and the issues and political terrain have changed in seven years. Many of the stances both Obama and Clinton took at the time, most of which were more alike than different, are no longer salient. Such social progress as marriage equality has advanced at lightning speed leaving both of their positions at the time (“I believe in civil unions but marriage is between a man and a woman” blah, blah, blah) sounding callous and calculating. The default Democratic party line on the financial crisis, which they both embraced, was a cautious centrist approach without any real desire to attack the root causes. Their foreign policy stances were obviously contrasted with the bellicose bombast of the Republicans, most especially the frontrunner John “bomb Iran” McCain, making whatever each of them believed look like the only sane choice regardless of the details. As we all know, Clinton suffered for her earlier vote for the Iraq war, the dominant issue of the time. It may have been the single act of her career that denied her the nomination.
Today we look at all that with the benefit of hindsight and see how Barack Obama handled the challenges that came after his election and we naturally wonder if Hillary Clinton would have acted any differently. I’d guess probably only around the edges and on certain discrete issues. But one hopes that the hard lessons learned by all of us will have brought her to a different place today. And that is what drives the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to seek a primary challenge from her left: They want to know whether she has pushed beyond (in the immortal words of Bill Clinton) “the braindead politics of the past” and embraced the new populist and internationalist mood of the present.
Perhaps the most urgent question is about foreign policy, which is very likely to be a major issue in this campaign and about which she is assumed to be more hawkish than President Obama. This is not just because of her earlier Iraq war vote but also some of her reportedly aggressive stances as Secretary of State on such issues as Libya and Syrian intervention. Where she stands on the clandestine CIA drone war and such issues as the massive NSA dragnet are unclear. Her position on the Iran nuclear negotiations has been supportive (thank goodness) but we are in a very volatile moment in a number of hotspots around the world and it’s important that progressives are able to make their positions known before the national security establishment has its way.
She does have one thing going for her on this, just as she and Obama had in 2008: The Republicans are proving themselves to be so savagely militaristic that they will make whatever case she presents as being the only sane alternative.
This, of course, does not mean she should not have her feet held to the fire by voters or that she is not obligated to listen and be responsive to their concerns. After all, the left was right about Iraq — and she was wrong.
On the economic front, they would also like to know if she has moved toward what the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has called “The Warren Agenda” which their members, and progressive groups generally, are urging Clinton to adopt as her own:
Raising wages and incomes for working people: Raising the minimum wage so that no one who works full-time will live in poverty. Strengthening and enforcing labor law to make it easier for workers to organize and have bargaining power. Better overtime pay rules. Equal pay for equal work for women
Creating more jobs: Making investments in roads, bridges, power grids, education, and research.
Trade policies that will raise wages and create new manufacturing jobs rather than the opposite results we have seen because of trade deals like NAFTA.
Protecting the economic health and dignity of retirement: Protecting Social Security and Medicare, adding to Social Security benefits, and changing federal policy to better protect and encourage pensions.
Making sure that Wall Street has less power to manipulate the economy and our political system, and that regular people have less debt: More cops on the beat watching over the big banks so that consumers and the economy as a whole are better protected from financial speculation and fraud. Breaking up the biggest banks to lessen their market and political power. Reducing the level of student debt.
Bringing in additional tax revenue in a fair way: Closing corporate tax loopholes, especially those that subsidize dirty energy companies like Big Oil. Raising tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. Creating a financial transactions tax so that speculative trading is dis-incentivized.
These are all popular mainstream Democratic policies which differ in some respects between the policies both Clinton and Obama supported in 2008 and which the current administration has advanced during its tenure. Some, like the minimum wage, are easy. Taking on Wall Street is hard. But progressives believe the time is ripe for a shift on these issues and would very much like to see Hillary Clinton take up the challenge. It’s never been a better time to be a progressive with a populist agenda.
Unfortunately, while the Democratic establishment seems to be more than willing to ride the “progressive” brand to victory (and that’s progress!) they also seem determined to redefine it in their usual image. Perhaps the best illustration of this comes from some of the beltway wags in the wake of Rahm Emmanuel’s victory last week in Chicago. Ron Brownstein reported this fatuous comment from one insider:
To Bruce Katz, vice president of Brookings’ metropolitan program, these disparities frame cities’ real choices. Garcia, he says, was wrong to argue that Emanuel’s efforts to attract business to the city’s downtown core somehow hurt its low-income neighborhoods. Without the jobs and tax base that a “robust downtown” generates, Katz says, “a city is not going to have a very competitive economy … and there is going to be very little social mobility.” The real question for cities, he says, “is how do you bring more people along for the ride?”
Despite all the liberal sniping, Katz places Emanuel at the forefront of mayors who are “redefining what being a progressive is” by focusing both on creating jobs (for instance through the public-private partnership World Business Chicago) and equipping more of their cities’ youth to compete for them.
That would be “re-defining” progressivism by making it into business friendly DLC centrism. We’ve been down that road before. These think tank technocrats have been selling these vaunted “public-private” partnerships since the early 90s when Bill Clinton first ran for office and we’re still dealing with crumbling infrastructure, poor education, soaring wealth inequality and stalled social mobility. At some point these people need to confront the fact that these ideas aren’t getting the job done.
Clinton already faces a challenge of being someone who’s been in politics for a long time and carries a lot of baggage (much of it dirt that’s been flung by her political enemies, and unfairly adopted by the press as a “narrative” which in their view is some unalterable historical reality.) There’s not a lot she can do about that but endure it. But she has control of her own agenda and if she doesn’t want to wear the “braindead policies of the past” button on top of all that she will reject anything that smacks of “Rahm Progressivism” and take a bold step into the future.
The time is ripe for a woman president and it’s ripe for an unabashed progressive populist agenda. If Hillary Clinton seizes this moment and runs with it, she could make history in more ways than one.
April 12, 2015 - Slate: The Indispensable Hillary Clinton - Why she is more vital to the future of the Democratic Party than even Democrats realize.
......................"Today,” wrote Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report after the 2014 elections, “about 55 percent of all state legislative seats in the country are held by Republicans. That’s the largest share of GOP state legislators since the 1920s.” What’s more, “just 11 states have an all Democratic-controlled legislature,” and Democrats hold single-party control in just seven states. By contrast, “Republicans have a legislative majority in 30 states, including the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina,” and single-party control in most of the South.
Not only do Republicans stand to control the redistricting process in 2020—solidifying their majority in the House of Representatives—but they also have a huge farm team of new candidates. To that point, two of the brightest stars of the GOP’s 2014 class—Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina—came from state legislatures. Democrats are less lucky. Their losses mean only a few places stand as incubators for progressive ideas, strategies, and candidates. Indeed, liberal counterparts to Republican governors such as Walker, New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Indiana’s Mike Pence, and Ohio’s John Kasich—ideologically motivated leaders with national profiles—don’t exist.
The simple fact is that even if everything goes well for Democrats in 2016, even if they hold the presidency and pick up the Senate as well, their long-term prospects are dire. After eight years in the White House, the party has atrophied, and given the partisan and demographic trends that are driving American politics—in particular, the demographic divergence in midterm and presidential elections—it’s not clear what Democrats can do to fix the problem.
Here’s where we are: Far more than its competitor, the Democratic Party is at a crossroads. At the moment, it’s being held together by its president and his potential successor, Hillary Clinton. But this obscures intraparty conflict and the extent to which the party is in desperate need of rebuilding for the second and third decades of the 21st century.
This, of course, is normal. After an eight-year term with the White House, an incumbent party is often exhausted. But with likely vacancies on an ideologically split Supreme Court—to say nothing of the programs of the Obama administration—the stakes for the next election are high. Winning the White House is absolutely vital for Democrats, and although Hillary Clinton is a great asset, she’s—potentially—their only one."
Somebody out there please, please find a way to deny her possession of the “Ruby Slippers”!
Yeah, forget that Marxist Centrism, the Butcheress of Benghazi needs to go full bore for the Stalinism she so dearly loves.
The points which follow would cost trillions.
“Creating more jobs: Making investments in roads, bridges, power grids, education, and research.”
I thought the great Ibama had that covered??? I mean unemployment is only 5.5%? I see no reason why big government needs to intervene. In fact, why do we even need big government if the private sector is running so smoothly?
“dirty energy companies”
ooo...i feel so dirty.
Is that how they describe Soros spending a billion dollars to register illegals and scam the rubes? ;)
I was reading some comments on the lefty sites yesterday like Huffington, holy moley, you would think God himself announced he was running. I *cannot* believe there are so many people still out there that absolutely kiss the ass of this woman. She can do absolutely no wrong in their brain damaged minds, it’s all the fault of other people or Republicans, or the best “they are trying to damage her reputation because of sexism” Yes! Of course! It’s all sexism! Sexism made her delete 30,000 emails! Sexism allowed 4 Americans to die in Benghazi! Sexism makes her a pathological liar!
Which people need to confront the fact that which ideas aren't getting the job done, again?
Given the spectacular disasters her brand of "progressivism" has created everywhere it has been tried, she should be more careful in the way she writes. Just blame it Republican racism, instead - that always works best. :)
We must run a principled CONSERVATIVE!!
Warm mush, establishment GOPe-ism WILL NOT WORK!!
Go Ted Cruz!
Salon, on par with Mad Magazine.
This particulat article is so full of bullshit, nonsnese and outright lying that it can not even pass for decent satire...
Centrism? What are they smoking over at "Slate"?
Bringing in additional tax revenue
Bringing? It's confiscated at the end of a literal or virtual gun. These aren't fallen leaves. Additional? Federal tax revenues continue to hit all-time highs with no sign of relief.
in a fair way
Oh God. This obsession with fairness and the misuse of the term. Sadly, there are millions like this writer who believe that the people at the DMV and IRS and sheriff's tax office are anomalies and that the nice, caring, loving, altruistic government bureaucrats operate in a secret location.
Closing corporate tax loopholes
Liberal definition of any remaining freedom whereby individuals or groups comply with the strict letter of the law but not in the way liberals would like: 'loophole.'
especially those that subsidize dirty energy companies like Big Oil.
What if we stop funding sure-fire losers like green energy? Instant savings, no dirt or loopholes involved.
Raising tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.
The wealthiest Americans won't care. They have enough wealth to move it around the world. They've always done it and always will. Dem leadership knows this - it's a shame idiot rank and file Dems do not.
Creating a financial transactions tax so that speculative trading is dis-incentivized
This is like saying 'I wish someone would invent the telephone.' It's here. It's been here. Capital gains anyone?
Speculative trading...is that anything like investing? Stock markets? Hello? Is this thing on? Everyone who buys securities is speculating including those purchasing municipal bonds that fund those lovely government projects.
And why is any government supposed to be involved in disincentivizing anything?
PS - this Digby is a wacko among wackos even at Salon.
Yes, she must avoid that disasterous centrism. Isn’t that just a reworded version of the bolsheviks’ credo “no enemies to the left”?
Hillary will be sure that they have the enemy that will rally them.
Us.
They don't have to love her, they just have to hate us.
The Democratic Party could run a cardboard box stamped "VOTE [D] HERE," and the lemmings would nod and do it. It's the turnout that they have to make happen. That's where it's falling apart - that and their bench is giving them little to choose from, candidates that can fool the average American.
What I just said in my last comment!
Bump!
‘embraced the new populist and internationalist mood of the present.’
Perhaps the UN will provide for their needs.
Electing Clinton would virtually destroy any semblance of economic freedom and individual liberty. What do conservatives work to ‘conserve’ after that’s gone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.