Someone, whose opinion I trust, asked me, after seeing Bill Clinton speak in the wake of Obama's rout of Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, "Does Bill Clinton have Alzheimers?" This is a good question. Where is the guy who usually raised the level of intelligence in political discussions? Has the so-called Great Triangulator lost his political instincts? Has he lost his mind? Or is he stuck so entirely in the past that he can't see the present reality? The present reality is that Obama represents the future, whereas the Clinton name represents the past.
*
What is the past anyway, the good times of the Clinton 90s? What is the nature of the Clinton "mystique" among Democrats and is there really a mystique? My memory is that Clinton might not have won the Presidency in 1992 if Ross Perot had not siphoned Republican votes from Bush I. For Democrats, however, he was that knight in shining armor, whose election ended the dark times of the Reagan/Bush I era. The immediate and persistent effort of Conservatives to undermine the results of the 1992 election (and the subsequent one in 1996), caused Democrats to rally around Clinton I, even if his actual policies were not fully supported. To be sure, Clinton was rational, lucid, in control of the facts and nuances of the interpretation of facts, which made a stark contrast with Reagan. The economy eventually boomed and Clinton (in comparison to Bush II) did not enter into ill-advised military adventures. And he was well-liked abroad. But on the whole, I think the mystique is not so much the product of actual policy outcomes as the result of negatives: Clinton was not Reagan, he was not one of the self-righteous Republicans who waved the stained dress in public, and, most importantly, he was not Bush II. Unlike the Kennedy mystique, which is also short on substance, the Clinton mystique lacks any inspirational qualities. It is true that the Kennedy mystique might have been a post-assassination production (the Camelot imagery), but the Kennedy name inspires hope, the Clinton name does not.
*
Hence, for Bill Clinton it must have been a painful thing indeed, as BBC commentator Katty Kay pointed out on a Sunday morning talk show, that Obama called Reagan the Great Transformer rather than Clinton. This single statement, not uttered in anger or spite by Obama, must have been the bee sting that roused the hibernating bear. Whatever it was, Bill Clinton has engaged in the type of personality destruction that has mostly characterized the demagoguery of Republican political operatives. Obama, in a typically understated way, had called the Clinton mystique into question. Bill Clinton has responded, and the response to the mere "fairytale" has diminished the former President.
*
To be sure, there are enough Establishment Democrats left who benefited from the Clinton mystique to keep the upstart Obama off-balance. The party apparatus doesn't really want change, and the Hill/Bill Team is a comfortable old shoe in which to slip the party's hopes. Obama, unlike Carol Moseley Braun, the first black woman senator (also from Illinois), did not work his way up the ranks of the Democratic party apparatus. Hence, the message of change that is compatible to the Establishment is a change to the past of Clinton I. Certainly, Bill Clinton has the sort of rock star effect on crowds that Obama has. But the difference is that whereas people want to be near Bill Clinton, they want to follow Obama. Hillary Clinton does not and never has had the effect that her husband and her competitor have on Democratic voters. Thus is remains important for her campaign to unleash Bill Clinton, for as much as he reminds people of Monica-Gate, he also reminds them of the good olds days, the twelve years between Reagan/Bush I and the eight years of Bush II.
*
Should Obama directly challenge the Clinton mystique? Probably not, since the Establishment Democrats would also be threatened. But he can sharpen his criticism of style. And he could simply name this style as a type that will not regain the White House for the Democrats. The Clintonistas are banking on the fact that no matter how "Republican" she runs her primary campaign, Democrats will still rally to her if she wins the nomination. This, rather than Obama's campaign, is the actual roll of the dice. Just remember John Kerry.
No comments:
Post a Comment