Politico's (wrong) lessons of Clinton's comeback

Politico's John Harris has a piece explaining various "lessons" of Bill Clinton's post-1994 political comeback that President Obama should learn from.  Like countless reporters who have attempted to summarize Clinton's comeback over the years, Harris places a great deal of weight on things like "Triangulation" and small-bore initiatives like school uniforms -- "Understand that small things can be big," as Harris puts it.

But Harris -- like many before him -- bizarrely omits two of the most important elements of Clinton's comeback.

First, the economy was stronger -- and the perception of the economy was much stronger -- in '95/'96 than in '93/'94. For example: The unemployment rate ranged from 6.5 percent to 7.3 percent for all of Clinton's first year in office.  It was in steady decline throughout 1994, but didn't fall below 6 percent until just before the November elections.  By the 1996 election, the unemployment rate had been in the mid 5s for two full years.

Harris writes that a key lesson of Clinton's comeback is to "Find a way to talk about the economy."  Strangely, he makes no mention of a more important lesson: Find a way to fix the economy.  Indeed, he ignores the concept that actual economic conditions have something to do with electoral results.

And Harris gives no indication that he understands that an incumbent can better get away with running on small-scale initiatives like school uniforms when the economy is good than when unemployment is hovering around 10 percent.

Second, Harris seems to have forgotten that a key feature of Clinton's comeback was an aggressive and successful campaign to highlight the opposition party's deeply unpopular agenda.  The GOP shut down the government, tried to slash Medicare, attempted to roll back environmental protections that had enjoyed decades of bipartisan support, and more. 

Revisionist histories of the Clinton Comeback tend to focus on, as Harris does, "Triangulation," as though that meant that the Clinton team didn't hammer the GOP relentlessly:

Clinton became famous for what his political consultant Dick Morris called “triangulation,” positioning himself between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans.
...
Under the Clinton formula, Obama would never surrender an aura of bipartisanship — no matter how bitterly partisan Washington becomes.

The reality is that Clinton and the Democrats spent 1995 and 1996 beating Republicans over the head for their draconian policy initiatives, ethical lapses, and willingness to stand in the same room as Newt Gingrich. 

Take a look at this 1996 ad, titled "Wrong in the Past":

Does that look like an attempt to blur lines, appear bipartisan, and run on uncontroversial small-bore initiatives?

Harris's "lessons" of Clinton's comeback have a couple of problems: They are far from a full picture of  what really happened, and they ignore the massive economic differences between 1995/96 and 2010. Other than that, though: Great advice.

Comments

[Rick Grossman]

It is interesting that no one can simply give Clinton the credit for his own successes and failures

[Nike Jordan Espa?a]

Bijzaywzozb do infant factor actually isn't all, emotion isn't all. | Nike Jordan Espa?a And close to all... Nike Jordan Espa?a プ┳axqiruulsp