Penn: Democrats Must Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
One happy result of the way the primaries came out is that Mark Penn is writing op-eds in The Financial Times rather than advising the next President of the United States:
The history of 1992 contains a clear warning that a centre-left coalition can fall apart quickly if the policies are seen as too far left. In 1993, Mr Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, adopted the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military, proposed and lost universal healthcare and adopted gun safety measures, banning assault rifles.
To just repeat what I said in response to Doug Schoen’s similar argument, the real thing that the next administration needs to do is to avoid failure. In particular, the country clearly faces a serious economic challenge. What the next administration needs — and what the next congress needs — is policies that will work to restore prosperity. If the administration signs into law a recovery program that, whether popular or not at the time, delivers the goods in terms of restoring prosperity, then the president and the congress will be in good shape politically. By contrast, if they can’t do so, they’ll suffer. Similarly, a health reform plan that works will be rewarded. That’s the real issue here — not policies that “are seen as too far left” or policies that are seen as too far right, but policies that are seen as failing.
Beyond that, I think facile analogies to 1992 should be rejected. In 1992, the Democrats lost 9 seats in the House of Representatives, there was no change in the composition of the Senate, and Bill Clinton got 43 percent of the popular vote. It was an anti-establishment result, but also an equivocal one — reflecting the reality of over a decade of divided government. Now we’re looking toward an unambiguous public desire to put the fate of the nation in the hands of progressives. The challenge they face is to take responsibility for the governance of the nation find policies that are equal to the size of national challenges, not to shrink from that duty by shying away from any sign of potential controversy.
42 Responses to “Penn: Democrats Must Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Ah yes, more 80-IQ profundities from professional concern troll Mark Penn.
Mr. Penn should be put in a new Cabinet position in which policy will be guided by first listening to his comments, and then doing the exact opposite of what he says.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
And the ‘94 rebuke was located in the South, I think. We’ve more cultural coherence this time out.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Why on Earth would I turn to a guy like this to tell me what policies we should push when I’m far more capable of fair and smart analysis than he is? (And not just ‘me’, but probably most of us?)
Now, if you wanted expertise in getting big money to break unions and such, you might give Mark Penn a call.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
No, no, no, as Petey has repeatedly pointed out the candidate of Mark Penn is obviously the best choice for bold policy change. To claim that the Clintons would govern as defensive-crouch centrists is a crazy as the argument that Isiah Thomas is anything but a first-rate coach and general manager. If only people would understand that the details of policy proposals during the primary are far more important than a candidate’s entire history as a public official.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Beyond that, I think facile analogies to 1992 should be rejected. In 1992, the Democrats lost 9 seats in the House of Representatives, there was no change in the composition of the Senate, and Bill Clinton got 43 percent of the popular vote. It was an anti-establishment result, but also an equivocal one — reflecting the reality of over a decade of divided government. Now we’re looking toward an unambiguous public desire to put the fate of the nation in the hands of progressives. The challenge they face is to take responsibility for the governance of the nation find policies that are equal to the size of national challenges, not to shrink from that duty by shying away from any sign of potential controversy.
Oh please. What “unambiguous public desire to put the fate of the nation in the hands of progressives?” The mood of the electorate is anti-Republican, not pro-progressive. Most of the new congresscritters the Dems are likely to pick up will be centrist or conservative, not progressive.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
The Obama team will likely govern how they campaigned–with the long view in mind at all times. They won’t win every daily news cycle, but they’ll win in the long run, which is all that matters.
The Clinton team was focused on the daily cycle and also lacked the extraordinary discipline of the Obama team. Obama will also have a much more compliant Congress than Clinton faced. Early first term disasters like Lani Guinere (regardless of what you thought of her, her nomination played out as a political disaster), Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood (remember nanny-gate?), gays in the military, and so on, will not occur under Obama. Also, he’ll get his economic recovery program passed by a lot more than a single vote.
Look for a strong conservative backlash, though. There is a real possibility that Obama’s program won’t really start to improve the economy until late in 2012, and we may well lose some seats in the mid terms. But the long-term strategy will win in the end. At least that’s how I think it’ll play out.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I think Mark Penn has a point, though.
Obma really needs to avoided being seen as too far left on any issue where failure or success is largely immaterial or will not be made clear by 2010 or 2012.
Gun control, gay rights issues, and other issues of the sort are not really issues that people associate with being “successful” and “unsuccessful” in the way that wars are or that economic issues are, because there isn’t as much of a standard yardstick to measure with.
That is, there will be considerable public consensus at any given time as to whether the economy is doing poorly or well, which will generally result in the party in power being criticized or lauded, respectively. But there is much less agreement about whether a gun control measure “worked” and generally people view issues such as this purely ideologically rather than based on events.
Put another way, it would be smart for the Democrats to avoid getting too caught up in ny divisive or controversial issues that do not have the possibility of a large payoff attached. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, pre-emption of state abortion laws (in anticipation of future challenges to Roe), gays in the military, and in particular any immigration liberalization, are issues that the Democrats would be wise not to spend much political capital on for the first year or so, because there is so much risk with comparatively little reward, at least in the short run (although in the long run, liberalizing immigration would give the Democrats the opportunity to dissolve the people and elect another, which could be a windfall for them in 6-8 years).
Issues like universal health care, tax policy, Iraq, the banking crisis would be a much wiser bet, because even though the issues are risky, they offer potential windfalls if handled properly.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“No, no, no, as Petey has repeatedly pointed out …”
Petey’s still around? Funny, I didn’t smell anything.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Mr. Penn should be put in a new Cabinet position in which policy will be guided by first listening to his comments, and then doing the exact opposite of what he says.
Yes some people like Mr. Penn and Petey have an impressive ability to be wrong every single time without exception, regardless of the issue.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Thanks for reminding me of by far the #1 reason why I couldn’t support Hillary Clinton. That fat union-busting asshole needs to be kept far, far away from Democratic politics.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
If it isn’t clear to everyone, by now, that Mark Penn is dumber than a bag of hammers — or, at best, as noted above, a GOP concern troll — it’s hard to imagine anything that would make it clear.
The challenge they face is to take responsibility for the governance of the nation find policies that are equal to the size of national challenges, not to shrink from that duty by shying away from any sign of potential controversy.
Perhaps the clearest evidence of this is the current Dem congress. They’ve done the latter, and look at their approval rating.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
What “unambiguous public desire to put the fate of the nation in the hands of progressives?”
Um, the one that’s about to kick the shit out of the GOP? The one that’s about health care reform, fixing the economy, helping forestall foreclosures, “investing” in the banks to get a return on our bailout of them, getting out of Iraq, improving infrastructure, emphasizing green technology and raising taxes on the ultrarich?
The mood of the electorate is anti-Republican, not pro-progressive.
Idiot. Really. Every single Republican is an idiot. There’s just no other explanation. Hey, guy, why do you think there’s an anti-Republican vote out there? Do you think that it’s because the GOP got everything they wanted and conservatism was shown to be the scam we all said it was?
Most of the new congresscritters the Dems are likely to pick up will be centrist or conservative, not progressive.
Wrong again! While there are some Democrats who are poised to win in strongly Red districts (and practically no Republicans who are going to win in Blue incumbent districts), the real push is coming from open seats and from the last of the coastal Republicans in places like Washington State, New York, New England, California and Maryland (and Arizona, Colorado and the Mountain West). The candidates pushing the GOP are liberal, generally and far more liberal than their GOP opponent.
ha-ha! Conservatism has failed. The Republicans are in line for a historic loss and no amount of lying, pathetic spin will help you now.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I do hope the Obama administration and the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress embark on massive, interventionist, progressive programs which make right wingers’ heads explode but which are massively popular with the American public when they work, since then we can watch as they are rewarded with perhaps decades of office.
At that point maybe the nimrods can stop twitching about how this is such a conservative / center-right nation.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Still, we should all be grateful that his sage advice to the Clintons ushered in an Obama administration. Here’s just one example of Penn’s innumeracy:
“America is a country of about 40 per cent conservatives, 40 per cent moderates and 20 per cent liberals… [as a result of McCain pandering to conservatives] moderates have moved to Mr Obama by nearly 2 to 1.].
Would this not imply that McCain is now getting over 53% of the vote? Hilary might have done well replacing this guy with a pocket calculator.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
A political lesson for aspiring Presidents: don’t listen to Mark Penn.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Yglesias is right on this.
People follow a successful leader. It is success that wins support.
I’m not too worried about left or right, as others noted Obama looks at the long view and he’s more interested in doing the right thing than winning the day’s news cycle. Furthermore, Obama is able to listen to criticism, but more importantly he’s able to articulate an argument for a policy position.
We shall see, and maybe my expectations are high, but Penn’s concern is frankly stupid. He’s fighting the battles of yesteryear rather than looking at the future.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
“Jay B”
Um, the one that’s about to kick the shit out of the GOP?
Like Matthew, you’re confusing “anti-Republican” with “pro-progressive.” You also seem to have a wildly exaggerated view of the likely change in the number of seats.
The one that’s about health care reform, fixing the economy, helping forestall foreclosures, “investing” in the banks to get a return on our bailout of them, getting out of Iraq, improving infrastructure, emphasizing green technology and raising taxes on the ultrarich?
That would be Obama’s tepid health care reform proposal, which doesn’t even try to achieve universal coverage, let alone a health care system that might remotely qualify as “progressive.” Ditto for the other policy areas you list. Obama would be lucky simply to undo the major conservative changes that Bush has wrought during his eight years in office.
Idiot. Really.
Moron. Really, really.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
the real push is coming from open seats and from the last of the coastal Republicans in places like Washington State, New York, New England, California and Maryland (and Arizona, Colorado and the Mountain West). The candidates pushing the GOP are liberal, generally and far more liberal than their GOP opponent.
No they’re not. Congressional districts do not suddenly change their ideological makeup. Centrist Republicans will be replaced with centrist Democrats. Conservative Republicans with conservative Democrats.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Put another way, it would be smart for the Democrats to avoid getting too caught up in ny divisive or controversial issues [like pre-emption of state abortion laws] that do not have the possibility of a large payoff attached.
Great idea and an even greater payoff. Thinning the number of reproductive age females by denying them access to proper medical care makes it even less necessary for the Democrats to spend much political capital at any time in the future on, you know, controversial issues like patients being allowed to make their own medical decisions, and healthcare access.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I think folk are being too negative on the whole concern troll thing. You have to understand that what the Republicans are really doing here is asking us to repay the favor in kind.
People on the left really need to start practicing their concern troll skills. After the election the really interesting stuff is going to be the progression of the GOP uncivil war.
Should the GOP double down on hate politics to consolidate the base (and risk losing moderates entirely) or reject hate politics entirely (and risk losing the religious reich?). The answer of course is they should do both! First double down on hate so they lose as many moderates as possible. Then when they realize that the market for hate is never going to give them a majority, shaft the religious reich and loose even more!
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Mark Penn looks like he should be registered with local law enforcement.
Obama’s First Year:
1) Iraq pullout plan
2) BIG infrastructure spending bill
3) Minor healthcare tweaking
4) Year 2, Tax the rich white people who loved the Iraq War and George Bush
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Stuff like ledbetter act or whatever its called and EFCA will take like 0 time or effort if the votes are there, and give another thing to tell voters or interest group you accomplished for them. I’d agree abortion and guns would be bad fights. Immigration is definatly a second term thing, once people feel more secure economically.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Re: Congressional districts do not suddenly change their ideological makeup. Centrist Republicans will be replaced with centrist Democrats. Conservative Republicans with conservative Democrats.
“conservative” and “centrist” mean different things when applied to Democrats and Republics. A “conservative” Democrat is more or less where a “centrist” Republican is. There is no Democrat equivalent of the GOP righwting.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
ema says:
Great idea and an even greater payoff. Thinning the number of reproductive age females by denying them access to proper medical care makes it even less necessary for the Democrats to spend much political capital at any time in the future on, you know, controversial issues like patients being allowed to make their own medical decisions, and healthcare access.
I think you miss the point. Pre-empting state abortion laws would be a waste of time primarily because, particularly in the light of an Obama victory, it would be unnecessary. There are enough pro-lifers who are supporting Obama that such a move would likely hurt him amongst them (as someone else said, they’d say “see what happens when you stop being a single-issue voter) and in the absence of an overturning of Roe (which would be unlikely to happen without more conservative justices being added), it would not actually accomplish anything.
There is also the danger of other things being added to the bill (public funding of abortions, repeal of “conscience clauses” allowing a doctor to opt out of performing/referring abortions) that would alienate even larger portions of voters.
Thge point is that divisive social issues such as gun control, gay rights, abortion, or immigration would be best left alone while Obama concentrated on areas where the potential rewards are proportional to the risks.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Pre-empting state abortion laws would be a waste of time primarily because, particularly in the light of an Obama victory, it would be unnecessary.
Let me rephrase that:
Pre-empting state abortion laws through legislation would be a waste of time primarily because, particularly in the light of an Obama victory, the Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn Roe in the near future.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:17 am
1992 != 2008, it just doesn’t, saying it does doesn’t make it so.
Also, if the public desires conservatives so badly, why do they keep electing Democrats?
November 4th, 2008 at 1:46 am
I’m with Matt that the failure to deliver universal health care early on in his term was more of a problem for Clinton than that universal health care was perceived as too far left.
Penn doesn’t mention NAFTA, which turned off a lot of labor involvement, as well as a constant drumbeat of media stories along the lines of “Clinton is untrustworthy,” and “Clinton is incompetent.”
I agree with Penn, though, that the assault weapons ban really did kill a lot of Democratic members of Congress, especially in Plains and Rocky Mountain districts. There are a lot of one-issue NRA voters concentrated out there, whereas most pro-gun-control voters were concentrated in urban districts that were already heavily Democratic. As policy, the ban was arguable, but politically, it was unarguably damaging in ‘94.
Gays in the military — I don’t know how many people voted GOP in ‘94 on the basis of that. My guess would be, not many. How many people would have voted Democratic solely on the basis of that succeeding? Again, my guess would be, not many.
Raising taxes on the wealthy — Clinton also proposed, but backed down on a BTU tax, shifting to a 4.3 cents-a-gallon gas tax increase instead. This was offset by an increase in the EITC. There were a lot more voters who benefited from the EITC increase than had their taxes raised by the income tax, but all the media ever talked about were the tax increases. They and all their friends were in the top bracket, and they didn’t know anyone who wasn’t. A lot of middle-class voters thought that they’d had their income taxes increased when they hadn’t.
This gets into one area where I half-agree, half-disagree with Matt. Matt says:
That’s all correct, as far as it goes. What I’d add to that, though, is, not only do Obama and the Congress need to restore some measure of prosperity, they need to get the credit for restoring some measure of prosperity.
In January 1993, unemployment was at 7.3%. In November 1994, it was down to 5.6%. The budget deficit in Bush’s last year in office was $255 billion. In Clinton’s first year, it was cut to $203 billion, and in his second year, it was cut to $164 billion. The average inflation rate was 4.2% during 1989-1992, and lowered to 2.7% in 1993-1994. The stock market grew faster in ‘93-’94 than it did in Poppy Bush’s first two years. On the down side, average hourly earnings grew, but not by much, and by November ‘94, interest rates on mortgages and other areas were up above where they were in January ‘93.
So, economic growth in first two years of the Clinton administration wasn’t great, but it was fair to okay. In addition, Clinton also signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act, reformed student loan terms to the benefit of students and ex-students, put a lot of money into the Community Cops program, which helped out in middle class quality-of-life issues. But if you look at the polls from the era, the public didn’t believe any of it.
So, in addition to actually restoring prosperity, Obama and Dem leaders had better have a media strategy to make sure people know what’s going on, if in fact good things actually are going on.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Laying all the blame on the Clinton administration is a bit munch. It should be rightly criticized for botching the appointment process and general idiocy in the first three months. Congressional Dems, Colin Powell and the Village’s sudden infatuation with the national debt certainly didn’t help.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Fioricet pills pain relief pills overnight shipping free prescription http://DrugsOnlinePharmacy.com
January 11th, 2009 at 5:10 am
http://www.batteryfast.com/
http://www.batteryfast.co.uk/
March 1st, 2009 at 5:50 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:44 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 12:57 am
wholesale jewelry,
handmade jewelry
March 12th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I wanted to comment and thank the author, good stuff
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Great site, Good info viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Greeting. What some people mistake for the high cost of living is really the cost of high living.
I am from Islands and learning to write in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Flights cheap air tickets, india hotels, holiday packages, air deccan for pune to chennai by indigo airline air ticket at rs.”
Thanks 8-). Dorothy.