When it comes to the Obama and Clinton administrations, Democrats are conflicted

[ProSense]

November 2, 2009

Clinton derangement syndrome

Oh, dear. In my previous post I used the example of Clinton-era growth to argue that even growth in the mid-3s wouldn’t be enough to bring unemployment down anywhere near quickly enough. And sure enough, many of the comments are along the lines of “Clinton doesn’t deserve credit for the growth” or “It was all the tech bubble.”

Um, I never claimed that it was all Clinton’s achievement. Nor did what I said have anything to do with the sources of the growth (it wasn’t all a bubble, but that’s another issue). I used the Clinton year because they offer a useful example of what growth at the kind of rate we just saw in the 3rd quarter means for employment.

Yes, I had a parenthetical aside about Clinton-era growth being faster than most people realize. So?

But I guess I sort of expected this. Even now, any mention of anything good that happened between the end of 1992 and the beginning of 2001 is like waving a red flag. Amazing.

Here is what I took away from Krugman's previous post: Krugman's interesting observation on growth, jobs, Clinton and Obama

People seem to want to criticize Obama for emulating Clinton while praising Clinton for being Clinton.

Before deciding to support Obama in the primary, I thought about whether he was going to follow in Clinton's footsteps or take a more progressive stance on the issues. I decided to support him because I saw, and still do see, signs that he is going in a progressive direction. Still he has to govern in a political environment that is less than progressive. A significant chunk of the Democratic Party believes the Clintons are the best thing that ever happened to this country. You cannot convince them otherwise. The Clintons are centrist Democrats. Hillary was a member of the DLC leadership. And then there are even more conservative Democrats.

So how does one govern and try to push a progressive agenda in that climate? People think the Clinton machine is just Larry Summers and crowd. They're everywhere, scattered across the political landscape. Want proof: John Podesta and the Center for American Progress, Robert Reich, etc. These people, even when they criticize from the left, are still somewhat loyal to Clinton and anything he does. They have to be to some extent because their own accomplishments are tied to his legacy.

[ProSense]

1. No comment? n/t

[Mz Pip]

2. Different people, different times

Clinton was president during a time where innovation and initiative were at their peak. Clinton, unlike his successor, gave it value. The economy did well because innovation was supported. Then along comes Bush who seemed more than happy to discard the idea of progress for wars and reactionary politics.

Maybe Clinton wasn't the most progressive of presidents and he certainly did some things I did not agree with but compared to some who came before him and the one who came after him he was a pretty good president.

Different times now. 2 wars, an economy in shambles, 8 years of Neanderthal policies to undue. It won't happen overnight. It's going to take years to turn this all around.

I don't want to go so far as to compare some Democrats with the Republicans who think Reagan was some kind of god. Different times. Different people. We do not live in a static environment and cannot recreate the past. I don't fault Obama for trying to take what worked from the Clinton administration and try to use it to fix today's ills. This is unchartered territory and using people who participated in what worked before isn't necessarily a bad idea - as long as you are willing to let it all go if it doesn't work.

I have my doubts about Summers and Geithner. But I am not an expert on these matters and can only hope that they have some desire to undo the mistakes of the past, even if they were part of the problem. I can't imagine that they do not want to be successful.

Lots of rambling thoughts here. I liked Clinton. I like Obama. Different people for different times. The one concern I have in all of this is that people have projected too much onto Obama - like he was going to come in as some kind of miracle worker. It doesn't work like that. Instant gratification isn't in the political vocabulary.

[ProSense]

3. Thanks for responding. n/t

[ProSense]

4. More Clinton people

Roubini Plans to Hire 17 to Expand RGE’s Market-Strategy Team

Roubini, a former member of Bill Clinton’s White House Council of Economic Advisers and senior adviser to Timothy Geithner, predicted the financial crisis that spurred more than $1.6 trillion of credit losses and asset writedowns at global financial companies. As chairman of RGE, Roubini advises institutions and individual investors through a Web-based subscription service. RGE has a team of 25 economists, Das said.

[SIMPLYB1980]

5. Obama is just like Clinton in many ways and

different in a few and that's a good thing.

[majamay]

6. Some people bash anyone but Obama: The very leftist Kucinich=bad. The "centrist" Clintons, bad

:shrug:

[Engineer4Obama]

7. Well you could say that about some of DKs supporters too

[majamay]

8. Thanks for agreeing n/t

[Engineer4Obama]

9. I'm not a disagreeable person :)