|
In 92 Clinton ran as a "new democrat." He pretty forcefully articulated a coherent set of policy prescriptions that promised a "new" way of deploying government -- something sort of sitting in between the Republican's anti-government, pro-market trickle down supply-side *** and old fashioned bureaucratic liberalism. I wasn't totally on board with those prescriptions at all. But Clinton's ideas were detailed and well thought out -- or at least one got the impression that they were. Though Clinton had and still has a certain amount of personal charisma and charm, it wasn't really his personal narrative that carried the day in '92. His victory depended on lots of things, but a crucial element was the widespread perception that he had a really fresh and detailed approach to governing that offered hope that he really might transcend past divide and stalemates -- the brain dead politics of the past, and all that. Of course, we all know it didn't all work out as planned. Partly because the Clintons made an utter hash of things like healthcare and partly because they underestimated how ruthless and determined the Republican opposition would prove to be.
But I'm not thinking about how Clinton governed. I'm thinking only about how he managed to win the '92 election. I'm trying to draw a lesson from that victory for Obama.
Clearly, there are certain similarities between Clinton circa 92 and Obama circa 08. Both promise something "new" that somehow transcends old ways of doing thing. Both Clinton 92 and Obama 08 were in a way unexpected bolts out of the blue. (But unlike Obama, Clinton didn't have to face any real democratic heavyweights in the primaries. All the heavyweights decided not to run when Bush the First was at 92% approval. So Obama's accomplishment in winning the nomination is much more impressive than Clinton's, I think. )
But I think there is a difference in style and emphasis between Obama and Clinton '92. I'm not sure what it portends, but I think it might be important. And I think Obama would do well in his speech to borrow something of Clinton's style -- though not his substance.
Again, Bill Clinton's campaign was a campaign of richly detailed "new ideas" and a seemingly well-defined new approach to governance. And it wasn't all just empty rhetoric. Clinton proposed many, many departures from past democratic and republican orthodoxy. Remember, for example, his promise to "end Welfare as we know it." That sort of thing, as I recall, was constantly front and center in Clinton's 92 campaign.
I'm not at all saying that Obama has no new ideas or policies. But two things seem clear to me. First, he is not yet identified by the electorate at large with a concrete set of governing ideas. People know that his brand is "change" but I don't think that they yet have a very thick sense of what sort of change Obama promises. I THINK (but this is just a guess) that most people (at least most people who don't read policy white papers and the like) think that for Obama change mostly is about "the way Washington runs." I don't think that most people associate a set of detailed policy changes with Obama. Rather they think of his promised change more in terms of the style of our politics. He promises a politics that is less divisive, less dirty, more uplifting, more empowering. But what the exact policy content of that politics would be, i think many casual voters would be very hard pressed to say.
Of course, people do know that he's a democrat and a relatively liberal or progressive one. And they certainly have some sense of what that means. But I doubt that they think that he has a set of truly distinctive policy prescriptions of the sort that were Clinton's trademark in '92.
Where do these thoughts lead? Well, listening to some talking heads tonight while channel surfing, someone said that a main goal of the Convention should be to have Obama tell his story ((while having others do the work of defining McCain.) I guess that's decent advice. But it seems to me that Obama has to seize the moment to make this election a referendum not on himself and his narrative and personality, but a referendum of two competing futures for the country. He has to turn the discussion away from himself, toward us. I'm pretty confident that he can do that.
But the test of whether he succeeds, I think, will be not if the voters just coming in come away with a better sense of who OBama is, but a better sense of why electing Obama will make a concrete difference in their lives and the life of the country. I think we almost certainly win if voters spend the next few months digesting Obama's challenging and exciting new ideas about where we should be going over the next 4 to 8 years. I think we may well lose if votes spend the next few months talking about who Obama is and what in his experience and history makes him ready to be president.
I think the way he reaches those working class and rural voters who haven't yet fully signed on is to focus like a laser on them and their needs and why a democratic government will be better for them.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Obama has won the hearts of what I'll call aspirational voters -- voters who want to see their country be better, to better reflect their highest values, to be a better citizen of the world, a better steward of the planet, etc. But I think he hasn't won the hearts of many "needs" voters -- voters who look to the government to ameliorate their own lives in concrete and tractable ways.
He needs to give a speech and put on a convention that both reenergizes the aspirational voters and reaches deep into the hearts of those needs voters too. To do that he should borrow a little of Clinton '92's style, if not his substance. Or so it seems to me.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
