Memo to Obama fans: Clinton-ism was a success. - By David Greenberg - Slate Magazine: "Barack Obama's upscale white supporters (and those too young to recall the 1970s and 1980s) tend to describe Clintonism as a betrayal of liberalism, a sellout to Wall Street, and proof that 'the Clintons' won't bring about change—a view encapsulated in the Daily Kos blog's visceral aversion to Terry McAuliffe's mug. Yet while the courting of big donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom left a bad odor, as a historical matter, the Clinton years were unquestionably a time of progress, especially on the economy. And it seems that as Obama mania sweeps the educated classes, the party's struggling lower-income base still prefers Hillary. One reason is that they're less prone than their better-off party mates to vote out of an enthusiasm for stirring rhetoric or viral videos or a wish to play their part in a grand narrative of racial reconciliation. Having been battered by globalization, rising health care and education costs, and the subprime mortgage disaster, they're remembering the Clinton years and voting for who they think will help them."
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thought I would chime in to come to the defense of Obama and his "upscale white supporters"...
First of all, lets take a closer look at the premise:
Clinton has been winning the lower-income brackets, true (assuming we are talking only lower-income whites).
However, Obama won the low income voters in the recent Potomac primary... so what changed?
There are two possible reasons for this:
One is mentioned in this article... but how does that explain the results from MD, VA, and DC? Unless those voters suddenly became convinced by Obama and decided that they didn't care as much about Hillary's economic "record"... it doesn't quite fit.
The second possibility, however, has to do with a phenomenon called "low information voting". The theory here is that lower income voters tend to be less-educated politically... and to spend less time examining the candidates before voting. This theory is borne out in lots of research, including a Pew study on voter knowledge that came out in the last year or two. So, why would the low-information voter lean towards Clinton? Because she has tremendous name recognition, and for quite some time has been the presumptive front-runner. So far, the race has shown that the longer voters have to get used to Obama... in a retail-politics, in-person kind of way... the better he fares.
This theory also can help to explain the fact that Obama has been doing increasingly better among this demographic through each primary. As he starts to become more of a real contender for the nomination, and even possibly the new front-runner... he would naturally start to win over many of these "low information voters". They have a tendency to flock to the front-runner, well, because people like to be on the winning side. This helped to explain why Kerry was able to win many of the low income voters vs. Edwards as he marched towards the nomination... momentum is everything, especially among a certain class of voters.
Perhaps this is partly why the Potomac primaries were so lopsided... Obama had just come off of 3 big wins after a good showing on Super Tuesday.
However, it is worth saying that not all low-income voters are low-information voters... many people have very good reasons for selecting their candidate. I simply point out that the research shows that there is a macro phenomenon here that probably shouldn't be ignored.
Finally... I fundamentally disagree with the presumption that the "educated classes" have merely been swept up in "stirring rhetoric" or "a grand narrative of racial reconciliation". Sure, Obama can speak well, and he is more inspiring than any politician that has ever held the office in my lifetime... but that is not my only reason for supporting him.
Just as it is unfair to classify low-income voters as stupid... it is also unfair to classify "upscale white supporters" as naive.
The article speaks fondly (for the most part) of the Clinton years. However, it is exactly the stuff that it quickly glosses over that scares many of the Hillary-wary Obama voters. We remember the Clinton years as a time of great promise, followed by a number of disappointments and the beginning of 10+ years of bitter partisanship. We remember the movement for healthcare reform having been set back by 10+ years due to its reckless mismanagement by both Bill and Hillary Clinton. The author mentions the Lincoln bedroom, but there were innumerable other things that most Democrats would rather forget as well. Not all of these things were Bill's fault... but for whatever reason, he brought out the worst in his enemies.
The article focuses especially on Bill's economic policies. True, the period during his administration was a very good time for the economy. However, how much of this can he take credit for?
Academics disagree on this... but there is some argument to be made that the President has very little control over business cycles. They merely take credit for the good, and blame for the bad. What did Clinton do to create the Internet Boom that fueled growth in the 90s?
Here's a link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/108382
The president most influential levers are in trade and fiscal policy... and here Bill can take credit for a balanced budget and NAFTA, among other things. The budget was important, but shouldn't we expect that out of any President? (surely we can do better than Bush here) And NAFTA, while good in premise, has had a small negative affect on those very voters who we say are supporting Bill because of the good times they had. Can't have it both ways on this, I think.
Finally, how much of Bill's record can we assign to Hillary?
Do we give her the credit for the good economy, even though its debatable if we should even give Bill that credit?
What about the loss of the Democratic congress and the birth of the "Permanent Republican Majority"?
Does she get credit for trying, and failing, at health care? Is that a good thing or bad?
These are things to debate about... but if Obama supporters are looking to the future, rather than the past, it is not because we are naive or too young to remember.
In many cases, it is because we'd rather forget it and move forward. Thankfully, Obama has offered that choice... and it is one that I intend to take.
Post a Comment