Paul Krugman: Lessons of 1992

The New York Times
January 28, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

Lessons of 1992 By PAUL KRUGMAN

It's starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White
House, the economy is a mess, and there's a candidate who, in the view
of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving
past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton's campaign 16
years ago.

Now, I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of the 1992 Clinton
campaign, which had a strong streak of populism, beginning with a
speech in which Mr. Clinton described the 1980s as a "gilded age of
greed." Still, to the extent that Barack Obama 2008 does sound like
Bill Clinton 1992, here's my question: Has everyone forgotten what
happened after the 1992 election?

Let's review the sad tale, starting with the politics.

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a
new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few
months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama
has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn't the result of anything the Clintons
did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from
conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a
Democratic president.

For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic
candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it's
worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty
politics really looks like.

No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by
Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged
for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal's
editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in
cahoots with a drug smuggler.

So what good did Mr. Clinton's message of inclusiveness do him?

Meanwhile, though Mr. Clinton may not have run as postpartisan a
campaign as legend has it, he did avoid some conflict by being
strategically vague about policy. In particular, he promised health
care reform, but left the business of producing an actual plan until
after the election.

This turned out to be a disaster. Much has been written about the
process by which the Clinton health care plan was put together: it was
too secretive, too top-down, too politically tone-deaf. Above all,
however, it was too slow. Mr. Clinton didn't deliver legislation to
Congress until Nov. 20, 1993 -- by which time the momentum from his
electoral victory had evaporated, and opponents had had plenty of time
to organize against him.

The failure of health care reform, in turn, doomed the Clinton
presidency to second-rank status. The government was well run
(something we've learned to appreciate now that we've seen what a
badly run government looks like), but -- as Mr. Obama correctly says --
there was no change in the country's fundamental trajectory.

So what are the lessons for today's Democrats?

First, those who don't want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they
don't want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s -- a sizable group,
at least in the punditocracy -- are deluding themselves. Any Democrat
who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an
unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given
credence by major media organizations that somehow can't bring
themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least
not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr.
Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn't one
of them.

Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter.

I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama's rejection of health
insurance mandates -- which are an essential element of any workable
plan for universal coverage -- doesn't really matter, because by the
time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very
different from the president's initial proposal anyway. But this
misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president
doesn't arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the
time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have
passed.

My sense is that the fight for the Democratic nomination has gotten
terribly off track. The blame is widely shared. Yes, Bill Clinton has
been somewhat boorish (though I can't make sense of the claims that
he's somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly
created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too
ready to demonize their opponents.

What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues -- a
focus on issues has been the great contribution of John Edwards to
this campaign -- and about who is best prepared to push their agenda
forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it
will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing.
_________________
.

Relevant Pages

  • Hillarys defeated Health Care bill a war cry to push this one through
    ... Democrats met in a nondescript Senate conference room with three ... President Obama, making a case for his health plan in Portsmouth, ... A blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as ... Health Care Since the Clinton Era ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Anti-Christian Edwards Fist-Fucks Hitlary on Health Care
    ... Democrat John Edwards on Saturday accused presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton of defending a lobbyist-driven political system that is "rigged against regular Americans" and that killed her plan for universal health care. ... Democrats controlled both chambers in Congress" and voters had elected "a president who actually had the courage to propose a plan for universal health care. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Great discussion about Hillary and Obama on Tim Russert
    ... Hillary being a corporate animal rejected these proposals outright and went with her Managed Care idea which sold out to the insurance industry and gave them complete control of medical insurance. ... Hitchen's also suggested that Bill Clinton delayed military action in the Balkans for four years because it would have drawn attention aways form Hillary medical initiative. ... I am firmly convinced after reading the history of Hillary's failed health care adventure that Obama a would after a fairer medical plan to Americans. ... Abstention by working-class voters increased dramatically in 1994 and was the primary reason why Democrats lost their majority in Congress. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: OT who said this ?
    ... Seeing the potential of Democrats aiding them as they aided the enemy in Vietnam, Al Qaeda sent their cell members to Iraq to up the body count. ... Afghanistan during the 8 years Clinton pretended they weren't. ... Iraq is the opportunity that Osama only dreamed about before the war. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • NBC: Words Of Wisdom From Ann Colter
    ... Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to ... Dog Democrats into believing it. ... health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)