Lessons of 1992
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
It’s starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago.
Now, I’m not sure that’s a fair characterization of the 1992 Clinton campaign, which had a strong streak of populism, beginning with a speech in which Mr. Clinton described the 1980s as a “gilded age of greed.” Still, to the extent that Barack Obama 2008 does sound like Bill Clinton 1992, here’s my question: Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?
Let’s review the sad tale, starting with the politics.
Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.
This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.
(Continued here.)
New York Times
It’s starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago.
Now, I’m not sure that’s a fair characterization of the 1992 Clinton campaign, which had a strong streak of populism, beginning with a speech in which Mr. Clinton described the 1980s as a “gilded age of greed.” Still, to the extent that Barack Obama 2008 does sound like Bill Clinton 1992, here’s my question: Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?
Let’s review the sad tale, starting with the politics.
Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.
This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
How much did individual Democrat Senators buy into the Clinton healthcare plan ? Answer – not much.
While Krugman blaming the Conservative movement may have some validity, I wonder about the extent of Senate Rules on the process. The Health Care issue may have been a rallying point for the Conservatives, but I believe a trend started with 102nd Congress.
Did the failure of the Majority Party to engage the Minority Party in committee and floor stages establish an increase in filibusters. The Dems had a 56 to 44 majority which was meaningless then as it is today. Nothing gets done until a cloture vote is held and unless there are 60 votes to move it forward, it languishes.
The most important vote in 2008 is not the President, but the US Senate. Vote 60
The President will be busy with foreign problems while Congress will settle the domestic agenda … so if you want change / action / inaction, your Senate vote will be the one that counts the most.
Post a Comment
<< Home