Mark Penn wrote an opinion in the Washington Post today titled “Progressive Centrism.” He basically makes the claim that Clinton was a Progressive Centrist, Lieberman is a Progressive Centrist, and thus Liberman equals Clinton.
Not so.
George W. Bush’s negative ratings on domestic policy suggest that compassionate conservatism is a philosophy that is dead with the American public. Instead, people are seeking a progressive moderate — someone who is strong on defense and earns high marks on personal values but who truly has the interests of the middle class and our growing immigrant communities at heart.
Let’s break it down:
Negative ratings. Bush is getting negative ratings because the occupation of Iraq is going badly, the case for war was misleading, we’ve had 7 straight months of job losses, and people are suspicious of the tax cuts for the wealthy.
Compassionate conservatism. Bush’s administration has never been marked by compassionate conservatism; it’s radical conservatism: the biggest deficit in history, designed to force cuts in future spending for social programs (these are structural deficits, not temporary ones that might promote growth); tax cuts which shift wealth and income to the top brackets of society; a foreign policy which embraces unilateralism and oil politics; and across-the-board policies that attack the environment, workers, and public education.
Personal values. What is he talking about? And how does Joe Lieberman have these traits over any other Democrat?
Immigrant communities. Does Penn mention immigrants because of Lieberman’s European background? I’m not sure how many Latino or Asian communities will feel an affinity for him based on that. To them, he’s probably just another white guy, except that he’s also Jewish. This could play a bigger, more negative role in the Midwest and South, where casual Jew-bashing is commonly accepted.
Overnight, Sept. 11 made security and national defense critical matters, rather than the peripheral issues they were in the 2000 election. Voters will want more than on-the-job training from the next presidential challenger.
If this is true, Kerry or Clark, not Lieberman, is the right candidate.
I don’t think it is, however. I think voters want a candidate who appears strong and whose philosophy of foreign policy resonates with their own.
Before the case for war was rejected by the UN Security Council, many polls showed that Americans supported the war, but believed that the United States needed to work with the UN and our allies. Anti-French and anti-UN sentiment only arose after the Bush administration publicly attacked the UN and “Old Europe.”
Now with daily attacks and occupation casualties exceeding war casualties, Americans are questioning the case for war and the cost. Many say the cost in lives and treasure are not worth the value of what is now perceived as a humanitarian mission against a dictator. Americans once again favor a multilateral approach that shares the risks, costs, and even the control of occupying Iraq with the UN and our allies.
Clinton’s was the most successful governing philosophy since FDR’s.
It prepared United States for the 21st century with unprecedented peace and prosperity. It far outshines the hollow compassionate conservatism of George Bush. So why would some of the Democratic candidates want to abandon the clear path Clinton showed us?
Why would Howard Dean be so antiwar he appears weak on defense?
Or Dick Gephardt offer a $2.3 trillion health care plan? Or several of the candidates, including Dean and John Kerry, abandon Clinton’s trade policy that helped create 22 million jobs?
Standing against the Iraq war is not being anti-war.
Promoting universal health care was part of the Clinton platform in ’92.
These free trade policies have had positive and negative effects. Goods are cheaper and jobs have left the country. But ask anyone if they’d rather have a job or a Walmart full of slightly cheaper products of Chinese, Mexican, and Canadian origin, and they’ll tell you they’ll take the job. Furthermore, the term “free trade” is deceptive: we would benefit from being able to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, but only now has a bill passed in the House to allow this. We would benefit further if our pharmacists, trained professionals, could buy these drugs at wholesale from Canada, but alas, the bill does not allow for that! Watch for a flap if some senior citizen buys something from Canada that kills him.
Our current free trade policies focus solely on the ability of corporations to increase profits; the direct effect of this is to help the wealthy who own 80% of stocks. At the same time, wages are kept low for working Americans or the jobs disappear altogether while foreign workers work in sweatshop conditions for low wages, long hours, and no benefits. Not only that, their drinking water is contaminated by the factory they work in and they die of malnutrition and dehydration. Who benefits? Nike still charges a hundred dollars for a pair of sneakers.
What we need is fair trade. Fair trade includes labor and environmental standards in our agreements that will keep some jobs in this country while promoting the growth of a middle class in others (remember, they’ll buy our products if they have money).
At any rate, I don’t think voters are passionate about trade. They’re passionate about jobs.
There was plenty of Republican Party anger at Clinton, but Bush didn’t beat Vice President Gore by being the angry anti-Clinton. He did it by casting himself as compassionate, taking enough of what people liked about Clinton to be elected. And no one said he was attacking the Republican Party.
Bush didn’t beat Gore.
Bush got as many votes as he did because he connected with people, raised tons of money, and courted the more radical elements of the Republican Party. Not only that, but Gore failed to connect with people, attempted to distance himself from the successful and popular Clinton, and went after people’s guns. Gun control can lose you your home state of Tennessee, and Clinton’s home state of Arkansas. Also, being perceived as a know-it-all smart-ass intellectual can lose votes among know-nothing fat-ass anti-intellectuals.
The real way to win:
The Democratic candidate has to, first and foremost, connect with people in person and on television. That means people have to like and trust him. At that point, if he seems like a smart guy, that’ll be okay, because you’re also likeable and trustworthy.
The candidate needs to be very clear about who he is and what he stands for. People like clear choices, and if you don’t seem all that different from your opponent, that’s not going to help people form a strong opinion of you.
The real opponent in this election is George W. Bush. By forcing voters to view your candidacy in light of the Bush administration, a candidate will be able to make the case for being selected as Bush’s opponent.
Posted on September 7th, 2003