The Lesson of Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton as President inherited an economy already in recovery and seeded by 12 years of Reagan tax cuts and business investment. His three major accomplishments (NAFTA, welfare reform, and a balanced budget) were Republican, not Democratic initiatives. Clinton's attempt to nationalize health care went down in flames, spurning a compromise for catastrophic health care by Senate Majority Leader Dole. The first and only Democrat to be reelected since FDR, Bill Clinton publicly regretted that he had not had the opportunity to lead during a war or major crisis, like 9/11. The narcissism of Clinton wishing that thousands of Americans would have died on his watch so his legacy was burnished is staggering; I know that George W. Bush would have given anything for 9/11 not to happen, but rose to the occasion. Bill Clinton failings, including his violation of sexual harassment policy in the Lewinsky affair and his perjury and obstruction of justice in a related Arkansas court case put this nation through a crisis; Kenneth Starr and the Republicans did not invent Clinton's misdeeds.
I would argue that the Democrats should have realized two things. First, the lack of national party success has to do with the fact that the current primary process tends to favor candidates with sharply liberal views and record in a country that has a majority center to center-right. More qualified centrist candidates like Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, and Bill Richardson have been unable to mobilize more than nominal support. In turn, this provides the generation of a platform to the left of the American center and tends to result in more polarizing voting patterns for those with national office ambitions.
Second, there have been some questionable character traits by many of the leading candidates. They tend to exaggerate their record, are defensive, arrogant, contemptuous and/or condescending of their opposition. In contrast, if you look at Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain, you see a pattern of integrity, optimism, and taking the higher ground--which comes across as more Presidential.
More Recent Examples
Six years later, George W. Bush, with no military or foreign experience, went up against the two-term incumbent Democratic Vice President Al Gore, furthermore enjoying the benefits of a long period of prosperity and peace. Bush held his own during the debates whereas Gore's behavior was palpably disrespectful, with multiple audible condescending sighs. Yet for all of Gore's advantages, he could only manage a statistical tie in the popular vote and lost his home state of Tennessee, and several recounts of Florida's disputed election, including one conducted by the media months after the election, showed Bush winning the state, despite Gore's cynical attempts to steal the election by cherrypicking recounts of disputed ballots in Democratic-controlled precincts.
The Democrats in 2004 seemed poised to give anti-war Vermont Governor Howard Dean the nomination, but a variety of factors, including a less-effective "get-out-the-vote" effort and a side battle with Richard Gephardt, allowed John Kerry to surge from behind, while Dean's infamous Iowa concession "scream" sealed his failure. John Kerry just never looked back on his race to the nomination.
The Democrats thought they had a no-lose situation: a Vietnam veteran with multiple Purple Hearts. But Kerry's legislative record was thin, he had a liberal voting history, and his nuanced positions seemed politically expedient. Kerry was ultra-defensive, making a preemptive charge of the GOP challenging his patriotism (a charge Obama himself has repeated without foundation) and vowing not to let "draft dodgers" like Bush and Cheney to get away with it.
John Kerry had alleged at an infamous 1971 Senate hearing that the US military had systematically engaged in war crimes. Many Vietnam veterans strongly resented the smears on their reputation, having for years during and after the war treated more like lepers instead of heroes for their sacrifices. A veteran group, Swift Board Veterans for Truth, released a series of ads which questioned Kerry's accounts of his 4-month service in Vietnam, where, for example, he earned 3 Purple Hearts without missing more than a day of duty. There were false allegations that Bush and his political advisor, Karl Rove, were secretly behind the ads. However, the fact is that the Democratic convention had finished before the ads were aired, and Kerry had failed to secure a typical convention bump; this reflected Kerry's inability to attract support much beyond a 40-plus percentage of anti-Bush voters.
The fact is that Bush repeatedly and on the record noted that Kerry's service was superior to his own in the National Guard because Kerry had put his life on the line by going to Vietnam. McCain himself, who was a high-profile supporter of Bush, condemned the ads. Personally, I found Kerry pandering for votes from the same veterans he had smeared decades earlier to be unethical, and if I had run the GOP campaign, I would have reminded voters of Kerry's politically expedient change with respect to Vietnam veterans (why pander to alleged war criminals?) and his divisive 1971 Senate hearing and the false allegations he had made, not based on personal experience there.
The Democrats seem to be in a state of denial, preferring to see the election results as "dirty politics" instead of the reality that they were running a flawed left-of-center candidate against an incumbent wartime President with widely acknowledged leadership in the aftermath of 9/11. The idea that the Swift Boat ads and Kerry's alleged unwillingness to fight back cost him the election is not credible. In fact, the ads had a limited run, and the national media largely dismissed the ads, not on the substance of the allegations, but by noting most of the people criticizing Kerry were not actively serving with Kerry but served after him and/or relied on disputed or incomplete evidence.
Have the Democrats Not Fought Back?
Scapegoating political advisor Karl Rove for the partisan divide is disingenuous. The fact is that Democrats denied consent to perhaps the most qualified candidate nominated to the Supreme Court over the last 50 years, namely Robert H. Bork, based on unprecedented personal attacks by Ted Kennedy and others, probably the singular event in reference to the divide.
I have hinted about my transition from liberal Democrat to conservative in past posts. I explained my transition started with nonpartisan economics courses taken in an MBA program, starting in 1980--the same year I was last involved as an active Democrat, ironically caucusing for Ted Kennedy in Houston. How ironic it would the unconscionable actions of Ted Kennedy politically attacking a brilliant jurist for fear of his influence on the Court and that liberal-favored outcomes based on muddled and fundamentally flawed legal reasoning might be undone would be the final straw cementing my conversion!
Then there was the new low of the sabotage of the nomination of Clarence Thomas, also to the Supreme Court, where we hear the scurrilous allegations of a former employee, Anita Hill, whom unconvincingly (to me) decided to follow Justice Thomas across job moves, despite a history of improper personal advances. (Also, there were prior threats by the National Organization of Women that they were going to "bork" Thomas.)
Clinton Supreme Court nominees Ruth Vader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3 and Steven Breyer 87-9. On the other hand, Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts carried 77-22, with half of Democrats voting against and Sam Alito was confirmed 72-25, with more than half of Democrats voting against. No doubt the Democrats will attempt to argue their nominees are more equal than Bush's, but it should be pointed out that many conservatives, including myself, were horrified when Bush nominated one of his Texas cronies, Harriett Miers, to the Supreme Court. She was eventually withdrawn. But the point here is that even though the Republicans would not have nominated Clinton's choices, they responded to their consent responsibility in the spirit of the Constitution while the Democrats responded to Bush's choices, both highly qualified nominees, in a largely partisan manner.
Is Obama Fighting Back?
Whereas Obama can not be held responsible for many of the unconscionable actions of his followers or the media, but the number and nature of false allegations and personal attacks is staggering: The New York Times, after an early endorsement during the primary season, carried a spurious story alleging an affair between McCain and a female lobbyist; there was an allegation that Sarah Palin's infant son Trig (with Down syndrome) is actually 17-year-old daughter Bristol's son; late-night comedian David Letterman accused Sarah Palin of being an unfit mother because unmarried pregnant Bristol didn't know to use birth control; there was a story that Sarah Palin had an affair with one of her husband's associates; there is a website with featuring an "interview" with Bristol's fetus, begging to be aborted.
But one of the most obnoxious statements which can be attributed to the Obama campaign is running mate Joe Biden's statement "I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there's joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well, guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?"
Not only does Joe Biden, a nominal Roman Catholic, contradict his own Church's position on this issue of embryonic stem cell research, but he's clearly making reference to and casting judgment on Sarah Palin, whom is mother to a Down syndrome baby, whom rejects embryonic stem cell research on the basis the end doesn't justify the means (killing new human lives to harvest their stem cells). That anyone should question or pass judgment on a loving mother and father whom accepted the gift of new loving child knowingly and willing, whatever sacrifices this might bring throughout the rest of their lives, is unconscionable.
In fact, the McCain campaign does support stem cell research. There are some differences of opinion between John McCain and Sarah Palin, such as drilling in ANWR.
Biden, of course, infamously referred to Obama as "clean and nice-looking" and he mentioned Sarah Palin is "good-looking".
But how does Obama himself do? I defy anyone to read the following actual quotes from him and see if this post-partisan man whom claims to want to change our politics, for all of us to work together, is not condescending, arrogant, elitist, judgmental, obnoxious or disrespectful:
"Now, I don't believe that Sen. McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know...So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first...It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it....I don't think John McCain is a bad man. I just don't think he gets it....John McCain doesn’t get it, he doesn’t know what’s going on in your lives, he’s out of touch with the American people...These folks are shameless....When you [Palin] been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person. That is not change, come on. I mean, words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up....I mean come on, they must think you’re stupid!...Change isn’t just a word...latest, made up controversy by the John McCain campaign...I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift boat politics. Enough is enough..."
Then there's Obama's political variation of the Marxist principle that "religion is the opiate of the people": "And it's not surprising then that they [small town Americans] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Finally, the Obama campaign promises to be "ferocious" in response (i.e., personal attacks on the Republican ticket). One of their latest spots spoofs McCain hopelessly in the past, in the days of Rubik's cubes, in an outdated suit and glasses, and then says that McCain doesn't know how to operate a PC or send email....
I have to make a response to this one since it falls within my discipline. First of all, Obama guy, if you think that taking off from or landing on an aircraft carrier or bombing a target from an A-4 Skyhawk is not more challenging than downloading, reading or sending an email, you are deluded. Second, there are legitimate reasons (from a legal standpoint) why a member of Congress might not want to personally read or write emails. Third, there are some IT studies that suggest there's a disproportionate amount of work time and productivity lost by people processing emails.
And I expect I'll need to address this topic again, but I find McCain's candor that he is not a professional economist more refreshing than Obama's pretense that he knows how to create jobs while his campaign discusses McCain's cut of globally uncompetitive business tax rates as giveaways to Big Business.
