Daily Kos

1993 Clinton Advisor: Bill used "same techniques Reagan used."

Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:31:22 PM PDT

I'm sick of having a country that's 50.1% versus 49.9%. I'm even sicker of politicians that are happy with that as long as they are, for now, the ones .2% ahead. It's sure to reverse itself, and that's no way to make real change.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

First, let's meet David Gergen, political mercenary. David Gergen was a strategist on George H. W. Bush's 1980 campaign and an advisor to Ronald Reagan.

Now let's meet Bill Clinton. Back in 1993, the unexperienced guy from Hope wasn't the bitter man we see today. The guy with the great speaking skills, a vision for the future, and a few skeletons in his closet was still bright-eyed and bushy-tailed enough. He hadn't signed NAFTA yet. He hadn't "reformed" welfare. He hadn't bombed Iraq and one of Africa's largest pharmaceutical factories because of "suspected WMDs." He wasn't the Rhodes scholar who seemingly can't understand a simple argument about what kind of presidencies realign America.

Yes, indeed, back in 1992, Bill Clinton knew how to win an election based on optimism and make it matter once in office. Where'd he learn that from?

Okay, here we go, back to May 1993:

New York Times:

Back in March (1993), when Bill Clinton seemed to be riding more or less high, David R. Gergen, the master salesman, sat on the sidelines and marveled at the cleverness of the new President's marketing plan.

"It is clear now, in contrast to how Clinton presented himself during the campaign, that the Democrats' true agenda is to reverse the direction set by Ronald Reagan," said Mr. Gergen, who was the White House communications director in Mr. Reagan's first term. "And the irony is that they are attempting to do this by using the same techniques Reagan used."

In that interview the man who was a senior adviser to three Republican Presidents said of the Clinton political operators: "They understand what Reagan understood. They have grasped the essential point that a Presidency attempting change is a campaign, and you have to work it like a campaign."

Ooh! Comparing Clinton's techniques and method of change campaigning to Reagan. Basically saying he ripped Ronnie off and sucked at it to boot. Surely "Big Dog" got purple in the face and roughed up a few journalists, right? No:

Now, proving anew that the abiding faith of this city is neither Republicanism nor Democratism, but Inside-ism, the 51-year-old Mr. Gergen has signed on as counselor to President Clinton, a role in which Mr. Gergen will shape the Administration's effort to reverse the very policies that he once sold for President Reagan.

So either way Clinton supporters want to spin it, they lose. The Clintons used Reagan techniques to campaign and to position themselves while in office. So says a man eminently familiar with both presidents from a marketing standpoint. But he also showed that -- albeit for a limited time in Clinton's case -- you can use Reagan's methodology to reverse Reagan's legacy.

However,

This is all ridiculous. Reagan won two elections, one by a absolute 49-state landslide. There's no question Reagan tapped into something, some widespread feeling of discontent and yet also hope for a better tomorrow, as Obama said. And there's no question that the Reagan Republicans have won the battle over ideas and presentation over the last, uh, 30+ years. Basically since Nixon.

They beat Democrats so bad that even Democrats began to pass Reaganesque laws and speak in Reaganesque talking point. The evidence for that Republican win is in the New York Times, too. It's in virtually every political section from the years 1993-2001.

It's time to turn the Reagan myth on it's head, it's time to use Reagan's methods to win and govern with a vast majority of Americans for the Democratic agenda for the next three decades. It's time to get a Democratic Reagan in the White House and not just the DLC Reagan Democrats we keep settling for. It's time to win BIG.

The Clintons knew how to do that once.

Now they only know how to win over 50.1% and think that's just fine. It's not.

UPDATE: I suppose I should point out that I meant "50.1%" symbolically, as in: just BARELY getting the win. As if this is a sport or something and eeking out a victory is just as good as a blowout in the record books. It's not.

UPDATE II: And of course:

Hillary and I will always remember president Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere.

THAT'S how to look presidential, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton...

Tags: Bill Clinton, David Gergen, Ronald Reagan (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 44 comments

  •  Yeah, (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    onanyes, Rex Manning

    I hate to be sour grapes, but I remember
    when Madeline Albright (former Secty. of State)
    said that no matter whether 500,000 Iraqis died
    during bombomg/sanctions/no-fly-zones that it didn't matter,
    that is was worth it. I think that the polices of
    George Bush (Sr.), and the follow-on policies of
    Bill Clinton were terrible. Bush (Jr.) just made
    things worse.

    •  Correct. (6+ / 0-)

      Let's get that quote:

         On May 12, 1996, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked by Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" about the effects of US sanctions against Iraq, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

         In a response which has now become notorious, Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

      And she's on stage with Hillary! This person IS ON STAGE WITH HILLARY! How much worse is killing 500,000 kids for useless sanctions than whatever Donnie McClurkin said?

      No Hillary supporter  can really say a goddamn thing about civilian casualties during Bush's war with a person like that is invited up on stage by their candidate.

      There's a whole other diary here...

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:40:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Reagan's methods... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    beltane

    ...were ignoring real issues, blowing smoke up the ass of the American people about how America was still "number one" and blaming the nation's problems on minorities and "welfare queens".

    We're supposed to use those methods? I don't think so.

    •  Welfare reform, welfare queens, racism, and Bill. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rex Manning, beltane

      What's that about welfare queens?

      Race-baiting in the context of welfare was helped along tremendously in the 1980s, of course, by Ronald Reagan, who took every opportunity to talk about "welfare queens." The right then turned that blatantly racist image into a semi-respectable concern by creating the notion of "dependence." They managed to convince many people that, for poor women and children, depending on one source of money (welfare) was pathological, while depending on benefit-less, low-wage labor was ennobling.

      By the time Clinton was elected the social psychologists spouting an anti-dependency line had made a pact with the right-wing political wonks and come up with a magic bullet solution to the "welfare problem": work. Any kind, at any wage, under any conditions. Even sweeping the streets and parks in exchange for a welfare check. Never mind the downward pull on wages overall if people working off welfare checks displace unionized municipal employees. Ignore the potential exploitation inherent in forcing a woman into a job, without welfare as a backup, that is her only means to feed her children. Work, after all, is good for everyone. Some just need mild encouragement, some need varying degrees of pressure, and some need out-and-out coercion, in the form of sanctions and time limits. In the view of the architects of welfare reform, forcing poor mothers to work for pay is not only in their best interests; it has the added benefit of isolating the "undeserving"--those who don't really want a job.

      By all reports, welfare reform is a raging success. And look how quickly it succeeded! The rolls have already been cut in half, and by even more in some states. Everybody is happily and smoothly transitioning from welfare to work. Self-esteem is up and welfare payments are gloriously down. The story is so widely circulated that even some of our so-called "progressive" friends believe it.

      The problem with this story is that it's not true. First, many of those being encouraged, pressured, and coerced to move from welfare to work end up with neither. Data from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suggests that only 21.7 percent of TANF participants leave the rolls because they got a job. Almost as many (15 percent) leave because of changes in state policy, while the reason for the greatest number of departures (56 percent) is "unknown." People disappear from the rolls because they are "sanctioned" for missing appointments or because they can't find childcare, or they are "diverted" from applying in the first place.

      Then there are those who do find some sort of job and find their circumstances no better, or even worse, than on welfare. Although the economy is supposed to be booming, churning out new 22-year-old dot-commie millionaires every hour, to poor people the job market is less friendly than ever. Even most of the white "welfare leavers" remain below the poverty line, despite attaining the nirvana of paid employment. And for people of color, of course, the labor market remains discriminatory, as it has always been. [Color Lines, Fall 2000]

      Bill Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, enacted welfare "reform" legislation no Republican could have. And it didn't work for the people that most needed it, and were most socially disadvantaged.

      What Reagan began socially with "welfare queens" ended legislatively with Bill Clinton.

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:47:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm for Reagan in reverse (0+ / 0-)

      Where we make people feel good about America, but a tolerant America, a peaceful America, and an America that takes care of everyone, not just the rich.

  •  I don't get the outrage over welfare reform (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    science first, JamesBrown4ever

    Did some of you want the current system that didn't promote work and responsibility to continue?

    •  They have forgotten the times... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      JamesBrown4ever

      ...or they were never there.

      I wrote about the time tonight...and what it meant to some of us.  People forget that life is about people and think politics is more important.  Empathy is dead.

      •  You know what (0+ / 0-)

        I fully understand helping people in their "hour of need" because I've faced very challenging circumstances, but I also think that people need to have limits and need to take responsibility for their lives. I have no problem helping people who want to help themselves and work toward self-sufficiency, but I don't want to enable people who don't want to work and who want to be lazy.

        •  which side to error on (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          beltane, JamesBrown4ever

          Will there be some abuse of welfare/aid type programs?  Of course; no program can ever be run perfectly.

          Is there virtue to helping people earn self respect by getting off of these when they can?  Sure.  That is why I support funding of education programs, public transportation programs that help people get to jobs, day care and the like.

          But let's face it: many people simply get into situations that they can't handle through no fault of their own.

          consider the person (this was on a recent PBS NOW program) who had a medical condition that could be managed, with $900.00 a month worth of medicine, for the rest of her life.

          Few can afford that, even if they have a job, if they don't have insurance.  And what insurance company would willingly insure that person?

          Yeah, there are some that have a bad work ethic, and many have terrible job skills.

          But I don't agree with the idea that we can just throw people away because they are expensive or because they might not be that productive.

          When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

          by onanyes on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:52:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

            Those who are medically, physically, and/or mentally unable to work should receive help. I have no problem with that. But the ones who are physically and mentally able to work should be required to if they want benefits.

            •  And single mothers who have kids? (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Rex Manning, beltane, JamesBrown4ever

              it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

              by Addison on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:56:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Single mothers who have kids... (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                metal prophet, onanyes

                ...and can't afford day care who are forced into working for a corporation three hours away by train so their children end up staying at home without supervision because there's no one to look after them while mom is out "earning their benefits".

                Family values, Bill Clinton style.

                •  that is a sticky situation (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Rex Manning

                  because on one hand, provided there hasn't been an illness or death in the family, the person who fathered the kids should somehow be held accountable.

                  And there ARE those who irresponsibly have kid after kid without thinking about the consequences.

                  On the other hand, the kids are there; what to do?

                  No easy answers; I say that we should err on the side of compassion, even if we end up supporting a small number of slackers and irresponsible people.

                  Rex Manning raises an excellent point; there was this mom who took a government provided bus 90 minutes each way to earn minimum wage at a mall; she had to get up at an absurd hour, return at an absurd hour, the kids were neglected and the government almost spent more on her transportation that it ever collected.

                  What sense was there in this?

                  When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

                  by onanyes on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:14:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Frankly... (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            glaser, JamesBrown4ever

            ....the notion that there might be a few welfare cheats here and there doesn't really bother me that much. Better that than a cruel system where we punish people who really need help. And without that help, they may never find jobs to make them and their families self-sufficient.

    •  No we want work and responsibility (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      JamesBrown4ever

      to be emphasized more, not wealth and corruption.  We need real welfare reform, of the corporate welfare system which gives moe and more to corrupt CEOs, which costs more than the old welfare system ever did.

      Even if we have to throw a few doles to the "lazy" poor, it costs less to throw them a few scraps that to build the prisons and house the prisoners that is the inevitable result of poverty.

      John McCain's Something for Everyone Plan: Military draft for youth, SS benefit cuts for elderly, Middle Class destruction, stock market plunge for wealthy.

      by IhateBush on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:18:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You think that... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      JamesBrown4ever

      ....giving someone a handful of bucks every month is a disincentive to working? How about the fact that the sort of wages that many welfare recipients would make would not make economic sense to actually work? We need a living wage in America.

  •  The Clintons never even won 50% of popular vote (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Rex Manning, beltane

    But I agree with your analysis.

    Clinton won in 92 with 43% of popular vote and in 96 with 49% of popular vote.

    The margins in the electoral college were significantly greater/

    •  But they did turn what was a 41-43% party (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      science first

      into a 48-49% party. That is much larger improvement than the Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis days. As much as people hate Clintons and (by extension) the DLC they did help bring back the white middle-class and affluent suburbanites who had fled the Democratic Party.

      •  Yes they did (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        beltane

        That's the great irony.

        The greatest electoral success of Democratic party in 30 years at the presidential level occurred with policies that the majority of this site's users finds insufficiently progressive.

        •  Small steps have to be taken (0+ / 0-)

          The Clintons did what they could in what was a politically hostile environment.

          •  Can't do presidents. (0+ / 0-)

            Politicians are always doing what "they can." And what a politicians "can" and "can not" do is defined God knows how and that presumed limit between the possible and the impossible is constantly disproved by remarkable people with actual courage. Yet most politicians are still limited by what they feel "can" do out of cowardice and fear of the electorate they presumably work for. That's why nothing ever gets done.

            it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

            by Addison on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:01:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Clinton had to deal with (0+ / 0-)

              a hostile Congress through 6 of his 8 years.

              •  Which was partially his fault. (0+ / 0-)

                And still no reason for cowardice and pursuing an essentially Republican agenda. It would've been better had he not signed many of the things he signed. Keep that in mind, he had a choice. Almost none of the Republican crap laws/acts had to pass his desk, but they did.

                it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

                by Addison on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:12:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Because he didn't have a mandate (0+ / 0-)

                and I think that was Obama's entire point.  Clinton was hogged tied by a hostile congress because they were elected in by a mass movement of the people.  The stats are staggering how many Dems lost congressional seats and Senate seats.  Governorships.  The people threw out the Dems for a reason because whatever they were doing wasn't working for the voters that voted them out.  But that time it was Newt that tapped into voter disastifaction with the corrupted Congress to make "The Contract with America".  The same thing happened in 2006 after people again got fed up with Congress doing jack nothing about the War and wasting our resources on that bullshit.

                Clinton could not sweep back Reagan policy because their was no mandate from the people for him to do it.  So he triangulated instead and got done what he could in small steps.  But he didn't throw back the Conservative Movement.  He was merely the rest stop between Republican Dynasties.  It was fruitful nice rest stop, but it was a rest stop all the same.

                •  For the most part, though... (0+ / 0-)

                  ....it wasn't liberal Senators and Representatives losing their seats, it was marginal and conservative southern districts turning Republican. There was also a major backlash to Democratic abuses of power over 40 years. But there largely wasn't a rejection of progressive principles by voters, particularly since most of Gingrich's "reforms" turned out to be incredibly unpopular with the public. Which was why, when Clinton stood up to Gingrich in the government shutdown, the public sided with Clinton.

      •  Dukakis got 46% (0+ / 0-)

        so the DLC really only gained 2-3%.

        John McCain's Something for Everyone Plan: Military draft for youth, SS benefit cuts for elderly, Middle Class destruction, stock market plunge for wealthy.

        by IhateBush on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:15:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It didn't hurt... (0+ / 0-)

        ....that unlike candidates like Dukakis and Kerry, Bill Clinton actually had charisma.

      •  Clinton killed the Democrats in Congress (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Addison

        After Clinton the Democrats have been a shadow of their former selves in Congress. Practically the first result of his version of Democratic governance was for the Democrats to be thrown into prolonged minority status by the odious Newt Gingrich and his partisans. Even with a majority now half the Democrats in there are Republicans in disguise, shilling for the rich and the corporations constantly. We think of how bad it was in the old days with the racist Dixiecrats, but the Dixiecrats were far more progressive on economic issues than the Blue Dogs of today. By the end of his career even George Wallace was probably more progressive on economic issues than a lot of our Blue Dogs. And we wonder why the Democrats can't seem to do much with their new majority status?

        People underestimate the extent to which the President is the de facto leader of his or her party. When the party takes a beating in Congressional elections, it's an indication that people may be less than happy with the President. That Clinton himself won re-election was more a result of Bob Dole being seen as a careerist Washington hack by too many people (as also seemed to be the misfortune of Walter Mondale when he ran). Clinton inflated himself into a larger than life figure but shriveled the party in the process.

  •  Great diary (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Al Rodgers, onanyes, science first

    Until the sentence. Bill Clinton never won 50.1% of the vote. His victories were based on a plurality of votes, an outright majority eluded him both in '92 & '96.

    The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

    by beltane on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:41:40 PM PDT

  •  Well now - I have been mentioning (0+ / 0-)

    the simularity of Clinton and Obama now since Jan 7, when Jonathan Alter (Newsweek) was on Charlie Rose show.

    As far as Clinton there isn't truly much difference with her position and Obama's. According to Jonathan Alter (Newsweek)Obama started by being an oranizer for Clinton in get the vote out for IL.  On the show Alter went on to say that there is much about Obama that many do not know, that he is more like Clinton than any other.

    Alter who has known Obama for 8 years, called Obama the "third way candidate" that he is one like the "new democrats".

    Do you know about the "third way"?  Do you know about the "New Democrats"?  Do you know about the connection to the DLC for both "third way" and "new democrats"?  If not maybe you should.

    The "third way" was great for Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, and I think we all know Hillary is a DLC leader now.  The New Democrats are a spin off from the DLC.

    SO you tell me the difference in voting for Clinton or Obama? To me there is none, or not enough of one to matter.

    http://www.dlc.org/

    http://www.ppionline.org/...

    http://www.ndol.org/...

    http://www.house.gov/...

    http://www.dlc.org/...

    Idea of the Week: Reviving Trade Policy
    http://www.dlc.org/...

    It has won enthusiastic support from internationalist Democrats in Congress. Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), who chairs the DLC's newly launched Global Economy Project, called the accord "a monumental accomplishment," and said that "Chairman Rangel's leadership paves the way for bipartisan cooperation on trade and greater access to new markets for American goods and services." New Democrat Coalition leaders agreed, with Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) calling it "a major breakthrough that reflects our commitment to the American worker, environmental concerns, and our economic ability to compete globally," and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) terming it "exactly the kind of forward-thinking trade policy we need."

    http://www.allacademic.com/...

    IF you want a true leader, the leader that has had "Change" apart of his platfrom from the begining before the others even announced or came out with their first plan.  The true candidate that will fight for you and me.  John Edwards.

  •  Hillary Supporter Questions (0+ / 0-)

    Why should we believe Hillary on anything about war when she has voted so many times for it, and never even said that she made a mistake? She does not even commit to timetable.

    Why should we believe Hillary on anything to do with the middle class, when health care was derailed but NAFTA passes and fed taxes went down for the richest from 33% to 28%, in the previous Clinton administration, that she had a leading role in?

    Why should we support Hillary when she has been a staunch support of Lieberman?

    Why should we believe what Hillary says when she has corporate types on her staff and accepts huge corporate donations?

  •  Is this Hillary hate or Obama love? (0+ / 0-)

    They're getting so hard to tell apart!

    Dkos = democracy. The only problem is that both give voice to idiot and genius alike. Read an anti-Hillary diary lately?

    by JamesBrown4ever on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:02:17 PM PDT

Permalink | 44 comments