Not time for Hail Mary's
Do you realize that if a Democrat wins the White House, it will be the first time that Democrats have held the Presidency for three consecutive terms since the Roosevelt-Truman Years? Kennedy assassinated in mid term, followed by Johnson, who wins an overwhelming election for what would have been JFK's second term, but he is so battered and beaten by the folly that was Vietnam that he doesn't even run for a second term. Carter started with such great promise only be done in by the hostage crises, stagflation, and party divisions over healthcare (which is what prompted Teddy to challenge him, if you believe Joseph Califano). This is followed by 12 years in the presidential wilderness with Reagan and Bush, where we hardly put up a fight on the national level and lost the Senate and only nominally controlled the House along the way. We get a two termer for the first time in decades in Clinton and actually we actually won the 2000 election only to have it stolen right out from under us by the Supremes. And now Obama, probably the most consequential Democratic President since Truman or at least the pre-vietnam version of Johnson. We cannot afford to let the Republicans succeed him because that will spell the end of the marginal progress that we have made under Obama. Think of how Bush in basically in one fell swoop undid the marginal progress of the Clinton years on taxation.
We can't afford another blown opportunity.
Bill Clinton, whatever his faults, started the undoing of the Reagan revolution, by putting US tax policy back on a much more progressive footing. He tried and failed to pass national health insurance. Granted, the thing was an imperfect Rube Goldberg device which he could not really explain or defend when push came to shove. But at least he tried.
Yes, I know all about the disastrous welfare reform bill which he signed. But that one got highjacked by the Republicans, who had seized the both the House and the Senate in the interim. Do I wish that he had not signed that bill? Yes, I really do. But the political calculations of the time being what they were-- what with the Republicans having seized both the House and the Senate and many governorships and the 1996 election looming and looking like a loser for us -- he bit the poison apple. Though I didn't approve and still don't. I understand the correlation of forces that drove him to it. The bill that he signed was nothing like what he advertised during the campaign. It was something far worse and more punitive and less supportive of the poor. But don't forget he did significantly expand the EITC -- which is a pretty effective weapon for ameliorating poverty.
Any way, the point is, it really matters that Democrats succeed Democrats. It also matters enormously that a Democratic president have a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate with which to work (though that didn't help Carter much).
Divided government produces very anti-progressive results -- though not as anti-progressive as monolithic Republican government would. At a very minimum, it blocks the progressive advances. (works the other way around too.)
We have seen that with Obama too. The ACA was passed without any Republican help. It too is a limited and imperfect thing. But it does represent substantial incremental progress. And thanks to the veto pen, the Republicans have been unable to undo it, despite controlling both houses for his last two years. But if they win the presidency, especially if they also maintain control of the House and the Senate, this too will come to an end.
That must not happen. Ensuring that we keep control of the ball is the first imperative now.
But what about more sweeping progressive change, of the sort that Bernie promises? Why not go for that now? Why not heave the ball downfield?
Because we are still short of midfield, and we are facing a really stiff defense, with a solid passing rush. We cannot afford an interception now. Right now, it is time for ball control offense. We need to pound away, bit by bit, at their defensive line. Later on, when we have battered their front line, and have shown that we can grind out yard after yard on the ground or through the short passing game, we can start throwing more downfield passes, taking more risks and maybe running up the score.
For now, I say stick with ball control offense. That's what going for Hillary amounts to. Going for Bernie is going for broke on a Hail Mary type pass. It's a long term struggle. Not a game that is won in an instant. If we get back the enough of the reigns of government that we can actually make significant, but incremental changes again, the national appetite for government solutions will be increased and we can attempt bigger more sweeping things.
Remember that the times that people like to point to during which Democrats made sweeping changes -- like introducing Social Security or Medicare were times during which we occupied the commanding heights and had basically routed the opposition. Moments like that are rare.
= new reply since forum marked as read
