Keeping an Eye on Both Parties
The kind of Democratic corruption I was referring to in my earlier blog post was not the Monica Lewinsky BS, but the unwillingness by Clinton's Department of Interior to collect oil and gas royalties and here and here (yes that was a problem under Clinton too), and the gutting of all Pentagon oversight offices because they created too much "red tape" (and here), and the repeal of Glass-Steagall to benefit Wall St. financiers at the behest of Clinton friend and donor Sandy Weill. Many of these were anti-government initiatives to make the government utilize free market strategies. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) (www.pogo.org) has seen it all.
Don't get me wrong, much of what Obama is saying about his plans for the government looks good on the surface , albeit still a little vague.
My biggest worry though is that because TPM readers seem to believe so strongly that an Obama Administration will not succumb to the "conservative" anti-government philosophy that they will blithely go back to their lives and forget about Washington for four years. But from where I sit, since some on the Obama team are old-Clintonites (and here) , I'm worried that those Dems who believed government is inherently inefficient and incompetent, and trusted their friends in big business to do it better, will be back at the helm. More reason to worry comes from DLC founder Al From, who described Obama as being from the DLC mold.
"What he has done is he has certainly taken a good part of the strategy we have articulated over the years," Mr. From said. "Which is to not polarize, but try to unite and build a coalition that understands that a Democratic victory is a coalition." Mr. From said Mr. Obama had an intellectual, and not just tactical, connection to the D.L.C. "I mean his chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, is a fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, which is our think tank," he said.
I'll just sleep better if we agree that the enemy is leaders who believe the government's role is to stand back and let defense contractors, Wall Street , oil and gas companies, and the pharmaceutical companies take charge - whichever party wins.
Couldn't agree more.
October 9, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils. Voting for McCain insures that the raping of our country will continue unabated. Voting for Obama gives at least a glimmer of hope that things will change. I'm going with the glimmer.
October 9, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Among the atrocities, you forgot to mention the legislation that that explicitly exempted CDSs and other derivatives from regulation. As described in today's NY Times (under the banner, 'Greenspan's legacies') we see that this legislation was pushed through by Rubin and signed by Clinton. There may be multiple causes to the current mess, but no one can argue today that that wasn't one of the big ones.
We cannot forget the Democrats role in all of this. We fought and lost to neoliberalism inside the party in the 90's, let us hope we completely purge that stain from our midst during the Obama administration.
Of course we vote of Obama. What Clinton did was adapt Republican positions and call them neoliberalism.
October 9, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is dopey. You're equating "corruption" with Clinton's tactics. He didn't have the House or the Senate, remember, geniuses? He wouldn't have compromised at all if he had had a Democratic majority. Instead, we'd have healthcare, and a lot of the legislation that Obama declares he's for. And Hillarycare would have been better than the anemic, play-it-safe plan that Obama is for.
He will, I think, end up much luckier than Bill because there's been a lot more water under the conservative bridge since 1992. "Triangulating" in 1995 was a brilliant improvisation. Now it would be stupid.
October 9, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton began compromising from day minus one. He had a Democratic House and Senate for two years. HillaryCare was a mess. By contrast, ObamaCare is a model of simplicity.
What started -- or was rationalized by Clintonistas -- as tactics ended up as standard operating procedure.
Christmas is coming. Go back to Santa's workshop and make some toys.
October 9, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the problems I see is that Barack OBAMA and his government-in-waiting, including the political hacks on his bandwagon in Texas, are ... lawyers and other sorts of negotiators. They do not think in terms of plans, standards, or strategy ("planes, surfaces, OODA loops, mission-time orders, Auftragstaktik") but just of options and decision-taking, not decision-making.
Behind them lie the squalid Congressional "leaders" who think in terms of "deals" (with the other party) and distributing perks, pork, and patronage to the least moral member of their own faction, holding on to their Blazing Saddles jobs, running for President, or retiring to the Lobby.
The question is going to be what OBAMA means and makes of "post-partisan":
Right now that is defined by Congressional "bickering" over marginalia and an Executive defined by the "Permanent Campaign" of raising funds from government concession-holders and foreign concession-tenders.
That is, actually, how coalition government works. But, there has been no coalition since 1994 and, actually, coalition government is not "responsible, two-party government" -- a term one simply never hears anymore.
What I hope OBAMA will do -- and what I as a Democratic Party official will do, regardless -- is simply building a majority party, not unlike the Obama Campaign -- described by the candidate as not himself but as "us". Indeed, from the grass-roots, the Obama Campaign looks like America, not like my or OBAMA's prep school. It looks rather like my son's Army battalion.
No, the OBAMA entourage looks like the same narcissistic, revolving-door of two-bit lawyers and or over-rated wonks as the previous Clinton Administration.
Now, that would be an improvement over the Bush Administration, Duh. But, it would not be up to the challenges we actually face, thanks in no small measure to the complicity of the Clintonites and the gullibility of the rotten Democratic Congressional leadership -- Liebercrats, mostly.
Change involves (a) a disciplined and mobilized Democratic Party as well as a (b) government based on meritocracy not on risk-averse, responsibility-evading credentialism and cringing liberal detachment.
October 9, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. As I posted before on her earlier blog. The fundamental problem is the governement can't work ideology expressed by the modern conservative movement. Clinton coopted that idea in his language and administration to win both electorally and to look good in working with the oppostition historically.
Obama, whether you believe he will drag down the old way of doing business or just participate in it out of political expediency, is still an important candidate for liberalism and ending the madness of rule by modern, right wing conservatism.
Ronald Reagan was not a party purist either, he betrayed many of the ideologues in his conservative movement on many occassions for very practical, deal oriented reasons. His real accomplishment though was to change the language of the debate among the mainstream american voter.
the estate tax became the death tax for example.
reagan framed the debate is this country and gave his Republican descendents one simple philosophy to push their agenda forward with one simple statement:
"the government is not the soltuion to the problem, the government is the problem"
With that frame, and the effectiveness of that message drilled deeply into mainstream voters psyche, this is the prism voters look at every election through now.
Obama is positioned to reshape the debate if he wins...to offer America a different frame with which to view the debate in this country. this is what matters to me, because shifting the mindset of the average american voter to view the world from a more liberal starting place is how to advance the cause in the future.
October 10, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for a very thoughtful approach to explaining the simple fact that both parties share resposnability for this mess we have. No doubt I would prefer that we not enlist the failed policies of the Clinton administration with a GOP congress and I sincerely hope that we learne from our mistakes.
To Obama's credit he is reaching out to Americans, he sympathizes with their difficulties (not that McCain doesn't), and he believes that Washington has to change as well as America. On November 5th the real work for all of America starts, not just for Obama but for all of us. This country was built by the people and will eb restored by the people and hopefully the Government will embrace a new civic discourse between the voters and the policies which empower a community to better itself.
October 9, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both parties do share blame, but it is the modern conservative ideology that both republicans and democrats have succumbed to that is the root of the problem.
We need to change the ideological bent of the American voter to make the changes that need to occur.
FDR changed the ideological outlook and look what he accomplished, JFK framed the debate and lead to real social change, and RR changed the debate to the current mindset that has lead us from relative growth, stability and prosperity to these ruinous days.
Who controls the language of the debate, or coopts it best, tends to win elections and be able to pass their bills legislatively despite the partisan make up of the legislature.
October 10, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink