|
In the last forty years, Democrats have held the White House for only three terms (twelve years). This is largely due to the fact that the Republican Party is viewed as more favorable to the interests of Corporate America, the wealthy in general, and even to small business interests. These interest groups collectively provide most of the funding for political campaigns and are able to influence the outcome of elections in favor of the Republicans, at least when the contests are closely contested. Jimmy Carter (bless his soul – I love the man), who has proven his worth time and time again as an ex-President, was, unfortunately, somewhat inept as a President, because of his inexperience with lobbying and deal-making with Congressional leaders and because of some indecisiveness as Commander-in-Chief. Carter’s failure as President led directly to the Reagan years, from which neither opportunity nor equity in America has ever recovered.
Both of the two other Democratic terms were the Clinton years, from 1992-2000. Many young people are unaware that it was Bill Clinton who masterminded those Democratic successes, even before he became the Democratic nominee. Working with the DNC, Clinton engineered a shift in the tone of rhetoric and the economic platform of the Democratic Party, from its antagonistic posture towards American business interests to one of partnership. Clinton reasoned that a Democratic Party that positions itself as an opponent of business interests in America will seldom win national elections, either in the Executive Branch or the Legislature, and, moreover, when successful, will have great difficulty getting anything accomplished. Congressional leaders depend on contributions from corporate America and can block most any initiative undertaken by a President elected on a platform antithetical to Corporate America.
That’s not to say that presidents must always kowtow to Corporate America but only that a wise President has to choose his/her battles carefully and limit antagonisms toward business interests to addressing blatant abuses. The Clinton terms were the most successful Democratic-led years in America since the Roosevelt years, until Bill Clinton foolishly destroyed the last two years of his own presidency (as well as damaging the opportunities for Democratic successors) for no better reason than a momentary lapse of libido control. Otherwise, the Clinton years were tremendously successful, with continuous economic growth, the paying down of the national debt, and foreign affairs handled with more than creditable competence.
Hillary Clinton learned her lessons well during her husband’s administration, not only as to logistical tactics but also an approach to governing that can work effectively. She understands the need to pick her battles carefully. You can’t subject Corporate America to sweeping accusations and finger pointing and then turn around and expect their help in solving America’s problems. Instead, Hillary Clinton directs her attacks precisely at those specific practices in particular segments of Corporate America that are damaging the country and ordinary American citizens. She was first among major political leaders to identify the impending credit problem and unethical lending and foreclosure practices of some of the mortgage institutions and the first to propose specific solutions. She was first among the candidates to propose using the tax codes to penalize companies that are sending jobs overseas and to reward those that are generating jobs for Americans. She was first to propose an economic stimulus package. She remains the only candidate to articulate the relationship between job creation and the need for universal health care. Clinton was first to propose a National Infrastructure Bank, in August of 2007.
What most sets Clinton apart, however, is her willingness to work constructively with business leaders and Corporate America in addressing America’s needs. She hasn’t burned any bridges by spinning a simplistic view that all of America’s problems are attributable to corporate greed. Clinton has a solid history of working with business leaders in New York and elsewhere (e.g., the CEO of Corning), Economic Development Councils, and state leaders to create green-collar jobs that focus on development of renewable energy sources. Although this idea is now echoed by her principle rival for the Democratic nomination, it was first articulated by Clinton.
As it happens, both Clinton and Obama gave major speeches outlining their economic visions in the same general venue, in Janesville, Ohio, during the recent Ohio primary campaigning. For her presentation, Clinton gathered together a wide assortment of the State of Ohio’s political and business leaders, as well as ordinary citizens with stories to tell about job loss or mortgage foreclosures. The tone of the event was one of “What can we do together to solve these problems?” “How can those in Washington work with State leaders in Ohio to facilitate new job creation and to protect home-owners.
By contrast, Obama’s style in relation to America’s economic problems is one of broad condemnations, delivered to supporters at rallies, calling the problems “a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington” and placing blame squarely on “billions in tax cuts year after year to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest few.” That kind of rhetoric of blame plays well to audiences thirsty for targets for their accumulated hostility for difficult times (I take some perverse pleasure in Obama's rhetoric myself), but these same words will later stand in the way of enlisting the help of the corporations and the wealthy in developing a new ethic and a better approach. Instead of playing the blame game, Clinton talks about a new patriotism and cooperative efforts to create new manufacturing jobs in America.
Obama, as President, cannot lead an American renewal by waging war against Corporate America. This is what Bill Clinton understood in the late eighties and what Hillary has absorbed into the core of her being. Ohio listened to the two candidates carefully and, as one local writer reported, “Words are not enough and when the speeches end and the handshaking begins, G.M. workers in the audience say they want to see real change in this country and in our economy.” Obama gave them vague assurances: “We need to maintain our competitive edge in a global economy, by ensuring that plants like this one stay open for another hundred years.” Clinton gave them concrete proposals and a spirit of cooperation. Small wonder, then, that it was Clinton who won majority support from blue-collar workers in Ohio and who has carried most of the other highly industrialized and technologically developed states.
Another grave difficulty with Obama’s economic policy statement (and evidence of Obama’s dearth of experience) is that he has specifically linked the financing of his ideas (rehashes of Clinton’s ideas) to ending the War in Iraq. It is utter folly to link security issues and the need to rebuild the American economy. We need to extricate ourselves from Iraq, but how quickly or fully can’t be based on competing needs at home. How we deal with international crises has to be predicated on security considerations and foreign policy. We can’t have the American people or its government having to choose between job creation and security issues, or basing a decision about whether or not to intervene in a crisis in Africa or the Middle East on whether it would preclude a middle-class tax break. America’s economy and America’s security are each too important to allow them to be pitted against one another as Obama suggests.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(266 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
