Hillary and the Politics of Disappointment

When Democrats worry about Hillary Clinton's electability, they focus on her reenergizing a depressed Republican base while demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the war, and consequently losing the election. A November 26 Zogby poll now shows her trailing the major Republican candidates, while Edwards and Obama defeat them. But there's a further danger if Hillary's nominated--that she will win but then split the Democratic Party.

We forget that this happened with her husband Bill, because compared to Bush, he's looking awfully good. Much of Hillary's support may be nostalgia for when America's president seemed to engage reality instead of disdaining it. But remember that over the course of Clinton's presidency, the Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, 46 Congressional seats, and 9 governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior. Given Hillary's protracted support of the Iraq war, her embrace of neoconservative rhetoric on Iran, and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum.

Think about 1994. Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns. This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide. I spent that campaign season traveling to promote a book on campus activism, staying with friends long involved with progressive causes. Everywhere I went, critical races would go to the Republicans by the narrowest of margins. Yet my friends and their friends seemed strangely detached, so disgusted with Democratic politics that they no longer wanted anything to do with it. Surveys foundthat had voters who stayed home voted, they would have reversed the election outcome. Even a modest volunteer effort might have prevented the Republican sweep.

To prevail in close races, Democrats need enthusiastic volunteer involvement. This happened in 1992, and then again in 2006. If Hillary is the nominee, she's likely to significantly damp this involvement, especially among anti-war activists, many of whom are currently saying her candidacy would lead them to sit out the election entirely. She'll also draw out the political right in a way that will make it far harder for down-ticket Democrats in states like Kentucky and Virginia where the party has recently been winning. A recent Pew poll gave herboth higher unfavorable and lower favorable ratings than either Obama or Edwards. And in a July Fox poll(of citizens, not Fox viewers), 29% of voters (including 27% of Independents and 5% of Democrats) said they would "never vote for her under any circumstances," compared to just 6% overall saying the same about Obama, and less than 1% about Edwards. So she might not win at all, despite Bush's disastrous reign.


But even if she does, she is then strongly likely to fracture the party with her stands. She talks of staying in Iraq for counterterrorism operations, which could easily become indistinguishable from the present war. She backed the recent Kyl-Lieberman vote on Iran that Senator James Webb called "Cheney's fondest pipe dream." She supported the bankruptcy bill and the extension of Bush's tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. If her contributors are any guide, like those she courted in a $1,000-a-plate dinner for homeland security contractors, she's likely to cave to corporate interests so much in her economic policies that those increasingly squeezed by America's growing divides will backlash in ways that they're long been primed to by Republican rhetoric about "liberal elitists." And if Democrats do then begin to challenge her, the relative unity created by the Bush polities will quickly erode.

Because the Republican candidates show every indication that they'd continue Bush's disastrous approaches to the world, I'd vote for Hillary if she became the nominee. But I'd do so with a very heavy heart, and a recognition that we'll have to push her to do the right thing on issue after issue, and won't always prevail. We still have a chance to select strong alternatives like Edwards (who I'm supporting) or Obama. And with Republican polling numbers in the toilet, this election gives Democrats an opportunity to seriously shift our national course that we may not have again for years. It would be a tragedy if they settled for the candidate most likely to shatter the momentum of this shift when it's barely begun..

***

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org

so Clinton's high ratings don't impress me much.

... for stating it in terms that nobody in their right mind can defy - although of course, they'll try.


:patriot:

It really would be a shame to throw away this golden, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity we Liberals and Americans have paid dearly for in blood and treasure. Hillary is the worst choice for Liberal policies, as she does not seem to really share many of our values. How can she say with a straight face that she won't let the corporate lobbyists heavily influence policy when they are easily her biggest contributors? I personally admire all the candidates who are sticking to the public matching funds, as they are closer in ideology to public funding of elections.

I said this myself before reading your article, but not so eloquently. This is the biggest danger of a Clinton candidacy. Activists, those of us who get out and walk precincts, don't like her. I would probably vote for her (reluctantly if there was no other choice), but I could not work for her.

Clinton was the reason so many Democrats bolted to vote for Nader in 2000. Everyone blames Nader, and he should not have run. But Clinton had disillusioned and alienated the Nader voters -- the staunchest supporters of progressive causes -- from the Democratic Party.

Hillary has already declared her intention to balance the budget at all cost. This is precisely where Bill went wrong.

The Republicans pulled this with Reagan and Bush I, and now they have pulled it again with Bush II. They run up huge deficits, increase the negative balance of payments and then, when they can no longer bribe voters to re-elect them by promising tax cuts, they pressure a Democrat into doing the unpopular, dirty work of balancing the budget, increasing taxes and cutting back on government spending on infrastructure, schools, health care, on the safety net for the middle class and the assurance of subsistence for the poor. Hillary is already expressing her willingness to mop up after the Republicans and then squeeze the dirty water on the poor and middle class. We need a better candidate. Frankly, I support Edwards.

I tried to recommend your post, however, I was too late. I'm disappointed that this important post did not make the front page of DU. This is one of the best posts I have read in a long time. Thanks.