Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Would President Obama be More Clintonian than Rooseveltian?

By David Michael Green, AlterNet. Posted June 27, 2008.


Obama remains enigmatic, and progressives are wondering how he would govern as president.
Advertisement

People all over the world - and certainly no less progressive Americans - are trying to take the measure of Barack Obama. The previous and coming few weeks will be a good, though not perfect, moment for doing so.

I have long believed that the winner of the Democratic nomination in 2008 would be the winner of the presidency. With an average six-point polling spread between Obama and McCain, that is looking more and more true. Moreover, my guess is that this year, like most, the Electoral College math will magnify that gap even further. I have contended for some time that Democrats are going to have a giant year (or, more precisely, Republicans are going to be fiercely spanked), all down the ballot, ranging from dogcatchers up to senators and governors. I expected that the presidential race might be a bit closer than those others, but even that may not be true.

Of course, everything can change in a day, let alone four months. Just ask Mike Dukakis, who entered his year's summer with 12-point advantage over George Bush the Elder, and proceeded to get stomped. Dukakis was one of the earliest Swiftboat victims, back before there even were swiftboater political assassins, per se, and of course the Atwater/Rove machine destroyed him mercilessly. He never seemed to know what hit him, and he certainly never fought back.

Neither condition seems likely to apply to Obama, however -- particularly the latter. That great hissing sound you've been hearing for some time now is the energy going out of the regressive right movement, including the funding and support from the hired guns. Not only do these people see the freight train headed their way, but they can't even get remotely excited about their standard-bearer, John McCain. If your politics suck in America, it's getting harder and harder to get out of bed in the morning.

Moreover, there hasn't been a Democrat like Barack Obama in the thirty years since the Faux Cowboy rode into town and sent them all scurrying for cover. Whatever else one can say about Obama, he doesn't stand around like Dukakis or Kerry getting punch drunk, watching his prospects go down the drain as scumbags relentlessly punk him with the crassest of tactics. Obama may yet lose this election, but it's highly unlikely that he'll do so while being a hapless observer of his own demise. For the pathetic creature known as the Democratic Party, that alone is actually a giant leap of progress.

Given that the presidency is within his reach, the question of who he really is now comes into sharper relief. As I see it, there are basically two options to choose from, with a host of permutations and degrees of variation between and around them. President Obama can either be an FDR, or he can be a Bill Clinton. He can either be a bold leader who leverages crisis and a sweeping electoral mandate into transformational policy and historical leadership, or he can be a caretaker who cravenly seeks to make no mistakes and therefore realizes no accomplishments. He can be a progressive who comes to the rescue of a country badly in need, or he can be Republican-Lite, putting corporate interests ahead of the nation's.

Many people are wondering which model we'll get with Obama. Some don't really care, as long as he is simply President Not Bush. Others have simply gone ahead and made the leap, assured that he is the Second Coming. As he once said, himself, for some reason people seem to project all their hopes and aspirations on this man.

But which is he? My guess, sadly, is that his instincts are more Clinton than FDR, at least when it comes to the cautious inaction aspect. That I can (barely) bear; the corporate shilling I cannot.

It's very much worth remembering, however, that both FDR and Clinton were presidents of their time. Without serious crises, FDR would likely have been Clintonesque. Meanwhile, with them, Clinton could have arguably risen into the pantheon of great presidents. Indeed, he supposedly once lamented that he got through eight years without such a crisis on his watch, a comment which for me always summed up the priorities of Clintonism better than any other single notion. Quick pop-quiz question: What kind of person is so incredibly self-absorbed that they would wish a deadly national crisis on their own country because of the positive effect it might have on their personal legacy? Answer: A Clinton.

Right now, Obama looks to inherit a situation rather in-between the 1930s and the 1990s, which, ironically, is in many ways probably more unfortunate than if things were palpably much worse. On so many fronts, now and into the foreseeable future, America is a slow-motion train wreck. That means it's coming apart fast enough to do truly catastrophic fiscal, environmental, economic, moral, political and international damage over a decade or two, but not fast enough to overwhelm the public's fear of change and thus generate support for bold action. This could well be the worst of all worlds.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, obama, mccain, fdr

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at www.regressiveantidote.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I've been arguing about this a long time. A New Deal requires a new coalition. FDR's legacy is gone!
Posted by: yellow on Jun 27, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are in the financialized stage of late capitalism. Foreign savings are the main force driving US consumption and low interest rates. During the Clinton era, foreign debt rose to an historic 18% of GDP. Today it is about 30%. The fed ceased cutting interest rates recently due to US dependance on foreign capital inflows to the Treasury Bond market. The weak dollar and low real interest rates can shut out the very source of capital upon which US consumption has depended since America became a net debtor nation in 1989 with more net foreign liabilities than US owned assets abroad.


Obama's approach to stimulating the US economy from its current slump will involve supply side methods similar to those of Bill Clinton. Reducing the deficit will be a key objective to reduce pressure on credit markets. Obama will definitely raise taxes on the wealthy for this purpose. Given the long stagnation of the US stock market, high risk portfolios will no longer receive the favored treatment they did under Clinton. Indeed, financial regulations stipulating higher margin requirements may be seen. An increase in the tax on capital gains not immediately put into productive investments may also be applied. But Obama's focus will be on the US bond market which accounts for well over half the global bond market. Raised interest rates are definitely coming with special terms for borrowers in mortgage trouble to sustain the housing market. Energy markets will also see more oversight to prevent runaway prices from offsetting income gains and growth in the US economy. But the approach will conform to supply side principles.

One thing not to expect is a recovery based on rapidly rising wages of average, non-supervisory workers and a massive program of targeted public investment funded by the restoration of a steeply progressive federal income tax. Full employment is not a goal. In fact, Obama is keenly aware of the Fed's concern about the Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU). It is likely that 5% to 6% unemployment will be seen as an acceptable cost of fighting the current threat of inflation in order to restore and sustain the health of the US Treasury Bond market upon which we have grown to rely. Reliance on the 10 year treasury bond market isn't just about attracting foreign capital investmsnt to sustain US economic growth. It is about a shift in the global division of labor which profitably located high wage manufacturing investment outside the US in low wage countries. Consumer goods made by US transnationals from these countries are then imported to the US.

The permanent depression of real wages on a global scale, and particularly in the US, gradually caused by this conscious strategy of offshoring productive investment has concentrated wealth and caused a paucity of consumer demand which has been stimulated only with large and growing amounts of household debt. In the 1990s, this debt was made possible by stock portfolio appreciation that grew faster than the rate of GDP. After 2001, it was the fast appreciating housing values which allowed the same debt/income ratio growth based on an even faster decline of the liabilities/asset ratio due to house price appreciation taking place at historic highs. Household debt may now rely on a rise of foreign inflows to the US bond market.

The bubbles of the past two decades have long burst and the problem of chronic stagnation persists. Obama's short term answer may be the US bond market. One thing is certain. The Keynesian train has left the station and the pump up of middle and working class incomes will not be used to drive a US recovery. Low real US wages supported the enormous financial boom of the supply side revolution. It is liable to continue to do so under Obama's tenure as a "New Democrat" with the full backing of the Wall Street firms that generously funded his campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I would add one thing Posted by: PaulC
They never play fair!!!!
Posted by: carbon-based on Jun 27, 2008 3:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt that the repubs are going to get stomped on. I cant recall when a party lasted more than 1 full reign as President since FDR. Reagan to Bush was one but that didnt last long.

If the dems lose this one they just need to give it up. That said, isnt it strange that the democratic congress has the lowest rating EVER - with Bush as a backdrop!..

That the price of gas went from about $2.70 per gal when they took control to where it is now!

They have presided over a big nothing in terms of accomplishments so this could all be closer than it should be!

I find it interesting that every time a democrat talks about the election that got away, it was because of dirty tricks. The other side doesn't play fair!

Wake up call.. could it ever be because America really doesnt want a bleeding heart liberal.. they want a moderate with brains..Obama figured that out - which is why he'll win.. Progressives will be in for a big shock as they were this week with his stance on FISA, the some of the SC rulings!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yup. Posted by: Longdream
» A few points Posted by: PaulC
» RE: A few points Posted by: Longdream
» Interesting post Posted by: PaulC
» RE: No, I haven't. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: And.... Posted by: Longdream