As the 2006 and 2008
elections loom ever closer,
our fellow Democrats
are scratching their heads
and racking their brains
in search of a political philosophy that
can return the party to the White
House. Everywhere, we hear the same
lament: If only Democrats had a
proven formula for how to win elections
and govern the country.
Fortunately, the Democratic Party
doesn't have to look far for a robust
political and governing philosophy. It's
called Clintonism, the party's most successful
formula for winning the White
House in more than half a century.
By any logical standard, Democrats
of every stripe ought to be embracing
Clintonism every chance they get. As
an instrument of policy progress, it is
beyond compare. Clintonism gave us
record budget surpluses; rising
incomes across the board; 23 million
jobs; millions leaving welfare and
poverty for work. The longer George
W. Bush tries to govern, the better
Clintonism looks.
As a political formula, Clintonism's
record is just as impressive. Not
only was Clinton the first Democratic
president to win re-election in
60 years, but consider this: In the
five elections before 1992, Democratic
nominees averaged 97 electoral
votes. In 1992 and 1996, Clinton
averaged 375. He won a dozen red
states twice.
In light of that unparalleled policy
and political success, why haven't
Democratic elites embraced Clintonism
-- particularly after the ill-fated
campaigns of 2000 and 2004, when our
candidates shied away from it and
didn't carry a single Southern state?
Unfortunately, some in our party never
accepted Clinton's willingness to challenge
orthodoxy in order to achieve progressive
ends -- on welfare reform, fiscal
responsibility, crime, and trade.
But perversely, many in the party
have actually held Clinton's enormous
political success against him. Precisely
because he was so popular -- leaving
office with a 66 percent approval rating
in the Gallup Poll -- they assume he
must have betrayed Democratic principles
along the way. They look at
Clinton's record of two broad victories
after three straight Democratic landslide
defeats, and come to the bizarre
conclusion that he somehow weakened
the Democratic brand. Nothing could
be further from the truth. Clinton won
handily because he reconnected the
Democratic Party to the principles that
had made it a majority party in the first
place: Jackson's credo of opportunity
for all, Roosevelt's thirst for innovation,
and Kennedy's ethic of mutual
responsibility. He put forward the
most ambitious Democratic agenda
since LBJ, and the most broadly successful
since FDR.
Clintonism has never been about
mushy compromise and electoral
expedience. From the beginning, it has
been just the opposite: a courageous,
tough-minded attempt to modernize
liberalism and solve the nation's problems.
The tremendous success of welfare
reform, which Clinton signed into
law 10 years ago this August, is a case
in point. Clinton's governing philosophy
of a new covenant to expand
opportunity and demand responsibility
in return emerged not simply
because Democrats were losing elections,
but because it took the ideals of
the New Deal and the Great Society
and found new means to make them
work again.
If Democrats win in 2006 and
2008, the party will need Clintonism
more than ever, because governing
successfully will be nearly impossible
without it. The problems Bush will
leave behind, from massive deficits to
a calamitous foreign policy, cry out
for the bold, purposeful pragmatism
that Clinton pioneered. The central
tenets of Clintonism -- providing
more opportunity in return for more
responsibility, and being willing to
try new means to achieve the same
ends -- will be the key to addressing
America's most urgent domestic
need: a new social contract that gives
citizens the tools to succeed in the
21st century.
Once again, the Bush presidency
has reminded America that failure in
the pursuit of extremism is no picnic.
As a governing formula, Clintonism --
by contrast -- can't be beat.
Of course, if all Democrats care
about is winning elections, Clintonism
is pretty good at that, too. Even
with the Republican collapse, Democrats
won't win back the White
House in 2008 and become a majority
party again without following the
Clinton formula to win Americans'
trust on security, values, culture, and
economic opportunity.
Clintonism is not some static, ossified
philosophy that died with the end
of the 1990s; it is a living, dynamic
political approach to governing that
can be as effective in tackling today's
challenges and tomorrow's as it was
yesterday's. Around the country,
Democratic governors and legislators
are coming up with new ideas that
apply its principles to the problems of
a new century.
As George Orwell once wrote, "To
see what is in front of one's nose needs
a constant struggle." Democrats ought
not bury Clintonism. They need to
write its second act.
