The era of (Bill) Clinton liberalism is over. What does that mean for Hillary and the Dems?

Clinton revived the Democrats partly by incorporating GOP critiques on crime, welfare and race. What comes next?

JOAN WALSH

President Clinton famously told us “The era of big government is over.” The Baltimore tragedy is trying to tell us, if we didn’t already know, that the era of (Bill) Clinton liberalism is over — just when his wife has her best shot at becoming president. In the wake of the Baltimore unrest, a stunning 96 percent of Americans polled by NBC News say they expect more urban riots this summer. Yet there’s little visible urgency around preventing that outcome.

A post-Clinton Democratic domestic agenda is essential – even if the Democratic frontrunner is named Clinton. Intentionally or not, Hillary Clinton echoed her husband’s trademark verdict on “big government” last week when she called for “an end to the era of mass incarceration,” in a speech on criminal justice that symbolized a break from policies championed in the last Clinton administration. Whether post-Clinton politics can be pioneered by someone named Clinton will be an interesting test for Democrats in the months and years to come.

My goal is not to bash either Clinton, as we look at what did and didn’t work in the 1990s Democratic domestic agenda. (I also think it’s unfair to automatically credit or blame Hillary Clinton for the policies of her husband.) Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who cared about civil rights and poverty. He saw the way Republicans had used both issues against Democrats since the 1960s and he tried to fight it, even if he had to wade into the swamp of white backlash politics to fashion a new Democratic approach to crime, poverty and race.

His notorious “Sister Souljah” moment during the 1992 campaign; his crime and welfare reform policies; his railing against “big government;” all were tailored to reassure white people that Democrats had heard their concerns about the excesses of the war on poverty, and would incorporate the politics of personal responsibility into future efforts to promote equality. But his goal wasn’t perpetuating poverty, inequality and racism; it was forging a winning political coalition to take up a new fight against them, informed by the lessons of the 1960s and ’70s. You can disagree with his tactics, but it’s indisputable that was his intent.

more
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/05/the_era_of_bill_clinton_liberalism_is_over_what_does_that_mean_for_hillary_and_the_dems/