# The Democratic party has rejected Clintonism **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 14, 2016, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172 "2016-04-14T11:18:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/1 "2016-04-14T11:18:51Z")
> **[How Bill Clinton lost his legacy](https://www.yahoo.com/news/how-bill-clinton-lost-his-1406972950126646.html)** > > When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, historians compared him to Teddy Roosevelt. For a while there was even talk of Clinton running for mayor, as Roosevelt once had. Roosevelt, you may recall, ended up running for president again and then... A new column from Matt Bai making a point I’ve been making for awhile. Hillary Clinton is running in an environment where she is forced to repudiate pretty much all of her husband’s record. Embracing Obama is smart, it’s something that Democrats in 2014 should have done but didn’t. But Clinton, unlike other Democrats who might try to run for President, also has her husband’s record to consider and instead of embracing it, she’s rejected it. Meanwhile, Bill isn’t on the same page, he’s out there defending his record from liberal critics, with right-wing columnists helpfully(hah!) backing him up. One almost wonders if Bill should just drop the pretense and join us on the right and then Bill and Hillary can be like James Carville and Mary Matalin. Anyway, I think where the party is headed is a huge mistake for them. At a time when Republicans are giving up the center, the Democrats are going, “No, we don’t want the center either! You take it! We’re going left, BABY!!!” Bai’s best excerpt, IMO: > [@](#): > > It’s hard now to escape the conclusion that Clinton did not ultimately transform his party, the virus of Clintonism having been expelled from its bloodstream. Ordinary Democrats still love the former president, but the Democratic leaders and activists reject pretty much everything he stood for. > > In politics, you see, timing is everything. Bill Clinton arrived on the scene at a time when Democrats were desperate and dispirited, and they were willing to entertain any argument that might reverse their string of losses, even if it clashed with their own dogma. > > Hillary never had that luxury. She’s trying to fend off her own Jerry Brown circa 1992 at a time when Democrats have been winning presidential elections, and winning parties tend to care a lot about ideological purity. She can’t have Bill out there excoriating populism and protectionism. But if Democrats were willing to tolerate Clintonism only to win, did they really even win? Democrats love to say that “We won 5 of the last 6 elections”, but it seems to me that they’ve only one two, and with only 1 unusually compelling candidate to the very voters who they usually find hard to turn out most years. The Clinton wins are washes, since Democrats were explicitly going Republican-lite because it was the only way to compete. Will 2016 be a true test of whether a progressive candidate can win? Maybe, maybe not. A lot depends on what happens on the GOP side. If Trump is the nominee, Clinton’s likely win isn’t an endorsement of liberalism so much as a repudiation of Trump. Cruz vs. Clinton would be a clearer ideological battle, probably the most black and white since LBJ vs. Goldwater. But Cruz is so far right and so unlikeable that Clinton’s margin of victory is likely to just consist of voters who think the “real” Clinton is moderate, and thus prefer her over Cruz, whereas they might prefer a Republican if a reasonable one was running. However, if the convention nominates someone like Rubio or Kasich that strikes me as a true test for whether the Democratic Party is actually back as a progressive force. Both Rubio and Kasich are far right, but not terribly unlikeable, and so if they lose, it will be because the country actually is changing, becoming more liberal. So we’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/2 "2016-04-14T11:56:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A new column from Matt Bai making a point I’ve been making for awhile. Hillary Clinton is running in an environment where she is forced to repudiate pretty much all of her husband’s record… Do me a favor and list the top 10 of Clinton’s policy achievements during his Presidency and tell me which are actively refuted by the current form of the Democratic Party. Please do not focus on refutations by activists and Sanders’ failing bid for the Presidential nomination. I am talking about the Democratic Party. Show me which of these are undergoing active opposition by the party. To other people thinking of participating in this thread: _ **please do not click on the link** _. It furthers the career of yet another talking head who writes opinion pieces for their controversial click bait value. To give you an idea of how intellectually bankrupt Matt Bai is, he was part of a round table on Meet The Press last weekend. I ask you to trust me that there was no analysis or anything of intellectual interest in the article. Just go to Wikipedia, clearly Matt Bai didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/3 "2016-04-14T12:01:14Z")
1. NAFTA 2. Welfare reform 3. Crime bill 4. Spending cuts 5. Gay policy-DADT, DOMA 6. Deregulation That’s six off the top of my head. Now you do have somewhat of a point, in that there are still conservative elements of the party that support Clinton’s stand on most of those issues, but Hillary does not. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/4 "2016-04-14T12:05:12Z")
I don’t think Democrats have any problem with “welfare reform,” “spending cuts,” or “Deregulation” to any great extent. Welfare reform is viewed by most as a success. Most people don’t even associate Bill Clinton with deregulation. If you mean banks/financial institutions, I think that’s way to obscure for the average voter. Fair or not, Clinton is remember as presiding over peace and prosperity, balancing the budget, and being attacked by a vast right-wing conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/5 "2016-04-14T12:09:07Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I don’t think Democrats have any problem with “welfare reform,” “spending cuts,” or “Deregulation” to any great extent. Welfare reform is viewed by most as a success. Most people don’t even associate Bill Clinton with deregulation. If you mean banks/financial institutions, I think that’s way to obscure for the average voter. Fair or not, Clinton is remember as presiding over peace and prosperity, balancing the budget, and being attacked by a vast right-wing conspiracy. Well, to be fair, there’s one other thing. The one the Republicans finally got to stick to the wall. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/6 "2016-04-14T12:25:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Democrats love to say that “We won 5 of the last 6 elections”, but it seems to me that they’ve only one two I suggest that you post an explanation of how you got hold of the White House kitchen’s private sugar and porridge inventory records. You don’t want the guys in black suits and shades to come looking for you. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/7 "2016-04-14T12:33:03Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I don’t think Democrats have any problem with “welfare reform,” “spending cuts,” or “Deregulation” to any great extent. Welfare reform is viewed by most as a success. Most people don’t even associate Bill Clinton with deregulation. If you mean banks/financial institutions, I think that’s way to obscure for the average voter. Fair or not, Clinton is remember as presiding over peace and prosperity, balancing the budget, and being attacked by a vast right-wing conspiracy. Clinton’s Presidency is looked back at fondly by Democrats. His specific policies are not. Clinton’s priorities were controversial among Democrats even then. That’s why it was called “triangulation”. An argument can be made that the Democratic Party never accepted Clintonism to begin with, it just grudgingly went along because they were tired of losing. Now that they’ve won a couple of elections, the base is feeling their oats and are itching to go to war. But that’s to be expected. What isn’t expected, or wise, as far as I’m concerned, is the former President’s own wife disowning most of his record. And the hilarious spectacle of Bill having to try not to defend his record too well lest it harm Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/8 "2016-04-14T12:33:39Z")
To save both the RepublicanParty and the Clinton legacy, what needs to happen is this — and they haven’t much time: To destroy the Trump Revolution and face off the Sandernistas, the moderate RNC leadership needs to go to Hillary instanter, "Look, we said things, you said things, let’s put that behind us, water under the bridge. At the end of the day both of us are equally committed to democracy, freedom and all that jazz; and we agree on 90% of the issues. "Together we can form a new centrist party devoted to capital and a heavy justice system to punish bad people. We will betray the Tea Party loons, and you will ditch the progressives, combined the voters we can join together will crush all opposition from malcontents and idealists. "It can be the New Republican-Democrats: we will guarantee you the presidency for 8 years: you choose Walker or Ryan as vice: we support you vocally and jointly select the same economic strategies; you get a free hand on women’s rights and all minority issues, and can make a meaningless gesture to health reform after destroying the ACA: we get a free hand on evolution, education and seeing off climate change nonsense. Plus you get four square wars a day ( our friends get the contracts. ) “This way we preserve the centre, banish Trump and the right nuts to the howling wilderness and ignore the left’s timid demands for change for decades.” _“I’ve got the brains, you’ve got the looks, let’s make lots of money !”_ ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/9 "2016-04-14T12:39:53Z")
People will vote for Hillary because they fondly remember the roaring 90’s, not because they like her, or give a damn about her policies/politics. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/10 "2016-04-14T12:51:11Z")
People will gladly vote for a head cold if the alternate is the bubonic plague. Bill was president in the 1990s and those days are over. Gay marriage is settled law. Trade agreements are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. Some deregulation has worked, some hasn’t. Spending has pretty much been cut as much as it can. These battles are all pretty much over. We aren’t going to relitigate the 1990s, we’re deciding who has the 2020 vision. The choice is between building on the solid legacy of Obama or digging up the ghosts of Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/11 "2016-04-14T12:53:18Z")
> [@](#): > > In politics, you see, timing is everything. Bill Clinton/ **Donald Trump** arrived on the scene at a time when Democrats/ **Republicans** were desperate and dispirited, and they were willing to entertain any argument that might reverse their string of losses, even if it clashed with their own dogma. Switch Trump for Clinton, and Republicans for Democrats, in your quote, and you have an exact description of where that party stands, right now! Just sayin’ ! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/12 "2016-04-14T14:27:40Z")
Is “Clintonism” a stand in for “New Democrat”? If it is, I find it hard to believe it’s been rejected even if it’s not talked about much on the campaign trail. In 2009, Obama himself said he was a New Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/13 "2016-04-14T14:36:26Z")
Matt Bai may be a fine reporter or whatever he fancies himself, but he’s been so anti-Hillary from the get go that I tend to disregard what he says about her. I know this is, supposedly, more about the party as a whole than about her, but it still just seems like one more stab of the knife. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/14 "2016-04-14T14:40:32Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Is “Clintonism” a stand in for “New Democrat”? If it is, I find it hard to believe it’s been rejected even if it’s not talked about much on the campaign trail. In 2009, Obama himself said he was a New Democrat. IMO, a “New Democrat” like Clinton or Obama is the same as an “Old Republican”. They are both well to the right of where the party used to be. The only reason they’re still winning is because the Republicans went careening off the cliff on the right side of the road. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/15 "2016-04-14T14:48:20Z")
Well obviously they are more to the right of where the Dems used to be, that was the whole point. It was in response to “Old Republicans” winning elections. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/16 "2016-04-14T15:45:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > 1. NAFTA > 2. Welfare reform > 3. Crime bill > 4. Spending cuts > 5. Gay policy-DADT, DOMA > 6. Deregulation > That’s six off the top of my head. Now you do have somewhat of a point, in that there are still conservative elements of the party that support Clinton’s stand on most of those issues, but Hillary does not. NAFTA: free trade agreements have only increased since NAFTA, and this trend clearly has not slowed down under Obama. Most Democrats’ problems with the TPP is in the details; they are not against free trade as a principle. Welfare Reform: Please find a reputable voice for the Democratic Party that is opposed to Clinton’s welfare reforms. Crime Bill: Other than some Black Lives Matter protesters, where is the stinging rebuke of the Crime Bill? Hillary has said she finds her language regrettable. That’s about it. Spending Cuts: You mean balanced budget? Yes, Clinton and Democrats in general have been and are for increasing taxes and limiting spending to control the budget. Gay Rights: It’s more nuanced but I will say there has been a major change repudiating Clinton’s policies on the issue. Of course, this change in values is true of a majority of Americans in general. Deregulation: Maybe his policy is being criticized in light of the recession, but I am not seeing a major change from the type of relationship with business and Wall Street promoted by Clinton in the Democratic Party of today. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/17 "2016-04-14T15:54:53Z")
Personally, I tend not to think that, “things are different than they were twenty years ago,” is all that compelling as a news story. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/18 "2016-04-14T16:00:48Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Personally, I tend not to think that, “things are different than they were twenty years ago,” is all that compelling as a news story. Breaking news: the 1980s were different than the 1960s. More breaking news: the 1960s were different than the 1940s. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/19 "2016-04-14T16:07:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Meanwhile, Bill isn’t on the same page, he’s out there defending his record from liberal critics, with right-wing columnists helpfully(hah!) backing him up. “hah!”? Why should that be in any way surprising? Bill was for all intents and purposes a Republican president. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172/20 "2016-04-14T16:09:25Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Is “Clintonism” a stand in for “New Democrat”? If it is, I find it hard to believe it’s been rejected even if it’s not talked about much on the campaign trail. In 2009, Obama himself said he was a New Democrat. Apart from Sanders, Warren and such, the pols have not rejected it. The Establishment has not rejected it. [But the base has.](http://www.salon.com/2016/04/14/hey_democrats_stop_gloating_your_party_is_imploding_right_before_your_eyes_too/) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-party-has-rejected-clintonism/752172.md?page=2)