AHC: Clinton successful at reversing slide of middle-income jobs, and has net win in the ‘94 mid-terms?

[GeographyDude]

Clinton’s announcement speech, Oct. 3, 1991
Little Rock, Arkansas

“Preserving the American Dream ... Restoring the hopes of the forgotten middle class... Reclaiming the future for our children.”
.
“ . . Middle class people are spending more hours on the job, spending less time with their children, bringing home a smaller paycheck to pay more for health care and housing and education. . ”

What if Clinton is, at least able to make a heck of a good start!

How well can the ‘94 mid-terms realistically go and his presidency in general?

 

[dcharles]

Clinton’s announcement speech, Oct. 3, 1991
Little Rock, Arkansas



What if Clinton is, at least able to make a heck of a good start!

How well can the ‘94 mid-terms realistically go and his presidency in general?

Not sure this is a thing you can just handwave into existence.

Clinton basically governed as a moderate independent. He consciously triangulated against his own party and the opposition party.

For him to do anything to "make a heck of a good start" at keeping income inequality on the downturn and the middle class strong, he's going to have find success as a left-wing populist--at least rhetorically.

Now, Clinton was charismatic, and I think if anyone could have made a good rhetorical case for these policies, it would have been him. On the other hand, Clinton wouldn't have just adopted left wing populism after he barely scraped into office as a moderate. So if he's always been a left-wing populist, you've got a whole different career, a whole different '92 campaign, etc.

See the issue?

 

[GeographyDude]

Clinton basically governed as a moderate independent. He consciously triangulated against his own party and the opposition party.

But didn’t the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) of which Clinton was a prominent part take the position that we can’t lead with civil rights, as important as this may be, because it only (directly) benefits some people. Instead, we must lead with middle-class economic issues which benefit a much larger group. Am I remembering this generally correctly?

Problem is, hard to figure out how to do this!

 

[dcharles]

But didn’t the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) of which Clinton was a prominent part take the position that we can’t lead with civil rights, as important as this may be, because it only (directly) benefits some people. Instead, we must lead with middle-class economic issues which benefit a much larger group. Am I remembering this generally correctly?

Problem is, hard to figure out how to do this!

I don't know exactly what the DLC said. Don't want to have to look up something that obscure for a small discussion like this. But I know what they did, and they were basically the force that moved the Democratic Party into the position it was in in the 90s--which was a fiscal and economic position that was virtually indistinguishable from that of Republicans.

The DLC wanted a president exactly like Clinton OTL--the real one, not the left-wing populist one.

 

[GeographyDude]

I don't know exactly what the DLC said. Don't want to have to look up something that obscure . . .

I think you’re probably right that diving into the DLC is a rabbit hole of uncertain benefit. I’ll just say that Clinton ran a very can-do campaign, painting Pres. Bush as not doing much on the economy. The problem is, Clinton didn’t deliver the goods.

And there are things to be done, like the industrial policy Paul Tsongas talked about. And smart changes to overtime law, which I think is as close to a silver bullet as anything.

 

[dcharles]

I think you’re probably right that diving into the DLC is a rabbit hole of uncertain benefit. I’ll just say that Clinton ran a very can-do campaign, painting Pres. Bush as not doing much on the economy. The problem is, Clinton didn’t deliver the goods.

And there are things to be done, like the industrial policy Paul Tsongas talked about. And smart changes to overtime law, which I think is as close to a silver bullet as anything.

I quite agree.

Not one-hundred percent certain about this, but I seem to remember you asking a decent amount of WIs and/or commenting on WIs regarding this time period kind of a lot.

Have you ever thought about doing a timeline that focuses on Clinton gaining--and maintaining power as a left-wing populist? It seems like it could be really interesting if it was done well. There've been a couple close calls with pols of that stripe putting up primary challenges in the Arkansas Democratic Party, so I think the state is as fertile ground as any in the 1970s-90s South.

It would involve some stupidly obscure research, but I've also never seen anyone try it.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

They could make people feel better with policy, and effect some change. But, the decline of the middle class, and more important the working class, had to do with fundamentals that could not be addressed in a couple years of 'policy'. The underlying causes had been ongoing for decades, and even now are not entirely understood. Those are not going to be reversed with a wiff of legislation & skilled rhetoric.

 

[alspug]

As much as I dislike Clinton I think it is fair to point out he inherited a pretty big mess that George Bush Snr left. The Military could not sustain the funding needed. The cold war was over and attitudes changed meaning more people centred legislation and less militaristic legislation.

It is also fair to point out his charismatic and very much central policy programs meant he secured support from Republicans to advance the economy. His is probably the most effective presidency in terms of working as a team to lead rather than the more divisive periods that followed. Clinton did not have many foreign policy major wins but did a decent job.

Up until his cigar event (Please do not bring up the young ladies name) his popularity was high. Lying about what happened was the turning point.

 

[Whanztastic]

Clinton '92 campaign had a lot of spending programs that were cut from his governance pretty quickly as the 1992 deficit numbers were much higher. The expectation was the investors would react favorably to lower budget deficits and invest more in the economy, but we've seen how that plays out in actuality.

Interviews - Robert Rubin | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

Interviews - Robert Reich | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

Then after that, a major stimulus was blocked by the filibuster and failed to help the economic conditions.

House Approves Clinton's Budget, Stimulus Package : Economy: Democrats hand the President a double victory, passing his deficit-cutting plan and his $16.3-billion spending program to spur recovery.

In a vital double victory for President Clinton, the House approved a five-year budget blueprint and a more controversial $16.3-billion stimulus package to carry out his "vision for change in America."

www.latimes.com

G.O.P. Senators Prevail, Sinking Clinton's Economic Stimulus Bill (Published 1993)

www.nytimes.com

CLINTON CHOPS $4 BILLION FROM STIMULUS PACKAGE

Backed into a corner by Senate Republicans and wavering members of his own party, President Clinton on Friday proposed cutting his economic stimulus program by nearly 25 percent in an effort to sat…

www.chicagotribune.com

The Clinton described above by some is sort of conflating his 1993 efforts with later Clinton, who triangulated even further to the center as his Administration progressed and he had a Republican House and Senate.

If maybe Clinton did not have the initial stumbling (Nannygate, etc.) and had a better Chief of Staff, the 1993 Omnibus (which Gore had to break the tie on) could've been more favorable to stimulus spending to rescue the economy; or if two more Dems won their Senate races (Sanford and Fowler).

A boyhood friend of Clinton's with virtually no Washington experience, McLarty was considered misplaced in the chief of staff job almost from the beginning and was seen as unable to perform one of its principal functions: imposing discipline on the president's operations and schedule, and order on the staff.

 

[GeographyDude]

Bill Clinton Campaign Ads (around October 1992)


“ . . Years of Republican neglect . . ”

“ . . the highest unemployment in 8 years . . ”

“The Republicans actually stalled the extension of unemployment benefits, blocked a middle-class tax cut, . . ”

——————————————

Clinton ran a very activist campaign in 1992.

 

[dcharles]

Clinton '92 campaign had a lot of spending programs that were cut from his governance pretty quickly as the 1992 deficit numbers were much higher. The expectation was the investors would react favorably to lower budget deficits and invest more in the economy, but we've seen how that plays out in actuality.

Interviews - Robert Rubin | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

Interviews - Robert Reich | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

Then after that, a major stimulus was blocked by the filibuster and failed to help the economic conditions.

House Approves Clinton's Budget, Stimulus Package : Economy: Democrats hand the President a double victory, passing his deficit-cutting plan and his $16.3-billion spending program to spur recovery.

In a vital double victory for President Clinton, the House approved a five-year budget blueprint and a more controversial $16.3-billion stimulus package to carry out his "vision for change in America."

www.latimes.com

G.O.P. Senators Prevail, Sinking Clinton's Economic Stimulus Bill (Published 1993)

www.nytimes.com

CLINTON CHOPS $4 BILLION FROM STIMULUS PACKAGE

Backed into a corner by Senate Republicans and wavering members of his own party, President Clinton on Friday proposed cutting his economic stimulus program by nearly 25 percent in an effort to sat…

www.chicagotribune.com

There's some truth to this, but let's take a look at the proposals:

"The House budget resolution, which enjoyed strong Democratic backing, would cut spending by $63 billion more than Clinton originally had sought and would achieve deficit reduction of $510 billion over the next five years."

"The new Democratic strategy envisions spending reductions and higher taxes, mainly on the wealthy, that would allow bigger outlays for a variety of social programs and shrink the budget deficit as well."

"The stimulus package would raise spending this year and next by $16.3 billion for community development grants, a summer jobs program, small business loans and other projects designed to produce 219,000 jobs this year and more in the future."

"Most of the savings would result from a “hard freeze” that would hold discretionary defense, foreign and domestic spending to current levels, with some programs being eliminated "

“this package promises to create at least 1 million jobs, 325,000 of which will be permanent, full-time jobs.”

[all from the LA Times Article]

"Clinton's new proposal retained $4 billion for extended unemployment compensation, which is favored by members of both parties. It also kept $1 billion for summer jobs for youth; $2.9 billion for highway construction; $300 million for childhood immunizations; $200 million for a program for children with AIDS; $845 million for waste-water treatment; $4 million for meat inspectors; and $141 million for small business assistance."

"All of the other proposals Clinton made in his original package-everything from community development block grants to flood-control and national park projects-would be cut 44 percent,"

[From the Chicago Trib]

Spending cuts and summer jobs programs, a paltry sum for small business assistance, new highways, and *unemployment* compensation--these are not policies that are going to do anything meaningful for the middle and working class. There is a tax increase on the upper brackets, but even that was pretty modest and mostly focused on addressing the budget deficit.

Gephardt didn't defend the program as much as he defended the President's right to have his agenda passed. The CBC offered another, more liberal proposal, and 87 Democrats voted for it.

Clinton was always triangulating. He just got better at it later.

As the Overton window moved to the right, so did he.

 

[GeographyDude]

I quite agree.

Not one-hundred percent certain about this, but I seem to remember you asking a decent amount of WIs and/or commenting on WIs regarding this time period kind of a lot.

Have you ever thought about doing a timeline that focuses on Clinton gaining--and maintaining power as a left-wing populist? It seems like it could be really interesting if it was done well. There've been a couple close calls with pols of that stripe putting up primary challenges in the Arkansas Democratic Party, so I think the state is as fertile ground as any in the 1970s-90s South.

It would involve some stupidly obscure research, but I've also never seen anyone try it.

Thank you very much for your vote of confidence!

To me, this is timeline. And I prefer the interactive approach. More so asking “Why am I doing this timeline,” followed by three long paragraphs, which I’m sure some people can pull off. But not me.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . But, the decline of the middle class, and more important the working class, had to do with fundamentals that could not be addressed in a couple years of 'policy'. . .

This might be the crux of the matter, and thank you for putting this out here. What about:

1) When Al Gore Dick Gephardt was running for president as a younger man in 1988, he had a campaign commercial that we were going to insist on trade being a two-way street with South Korea regarding auto imports and exports.

2) For every two assistant managers at Walmart working 60 hours a week*, that should really be three jobs.

* maybe only during Christmas, but have observed that newly-minted department and zone managers are the most pissed off people at the store

 

[GeographyDude]

Dick Gephardt: "Hyundai"

from 1988

Gephardt: “The Korean will know two things. They’ll know that we’ll still honor our treaties to defend them--because that’s the kind of country we are. But they’ll also be left asking themselves: How many Americans are going to pay $48,000 for one of their Hyundais?”

Gephardt won the 1988 Iowa caucus. But then placed a rather distant second to Michael Dukakis in the New Hampshire primary.

 

[dcharles]

Dick Gephardt: "Hyundai"

from 1988

Gephardt: “The Korean will know two things. They’ll know that we’ll still honor our treaties to defend them--because that’s the kind of country we are. But they’ll also be left asking themselves: How many Americans are going to pay $48,000 for one of their Hyundais?”

Gephardt won the 1988 Iowa caucus. But then placed a rather distant second to Michael Dukakis in the New Hampshire primary.

After Gephardt left office, he became a lobbyist for Armenian Genocide denial. And he's a "labor consultant" for Boeing and Spirit airlines. "Labor-consultant," of course, is a piece of Orwellian doublespeak. He--the champion of organized labor--is now best described as an anti-labor consultant.

No shit. It's all right on his Wikipedia page.

Might want to get a more honest, good faith messenger in here if we're looking to save the middle class.

Might I suggest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Wofford

He was the Paul Wellstone of the early 90s.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

This might be the crux of the matter, and thank you for putting this out here. What about:

1) When Al Gore Dick Gephardt was running for president as a younger man in 1988, he had a campaign commercial that we were going to insist on trade being a two-way street with South Korea regarding auto imports and exports.

Helpful & politically popular. But that solution was being proposed in the 1960s & 1970s as well. The important question in this context is why the corporate culture at GM, Chrysler, AM, or Ford could not adapt correctly & recover a competitive edge. One or two companies remaining uncompetitive can be attributed to short term or superficial problems. But, when multiple sectors are stalled across the board, for decades its a far deeper and broader problem.

2) For every two assistant managers at Walmart working 60 hours a week*, that should really be three jobs.

* maybe only during Christmas, but have observed that newly-minted department and zone managers are the most pissed off people at the store

Unfortunately luring two managers into doing the work of three proved a successful business model. Wal Mart & others like Dollar General are very good at placing capable people who fail at dealing with the larger picture of the situation are in. I was, & had the luxury of being able to quit. The employer had to find some other sucker.

 

[GeographyDude]

Then after that, a major stimulus was blocked by the filibuster and failed to help the economic conditions.

————————————————

CLINTON CHOPS $4 BILLION FROM STIMULUS PACKAGE

Backed into a corner by Senate Republicans and wavering members of his own party, President Clinton on Friday proposed cutting his economic stimulus program by nearly 25 percent in an effort to sat…

www.chicagotribune.com

April 17, 1993
“President Clinton on Friday proposed cutting his economic stimulus program by nearly 25 percent in an effort to satisfy its opponents and avoid a major defeat.”

————————————————

Disappointing.

And by not having money in reserve, you lose the dynamic element of being able to go bigger with something which is clearly working.

You know, I think the filibuster might be an example of a GIBL, meaning Good Idea Bad Law.

As another example, I think the UK relatively recently changed parliamentary procedure so you can have only one “no confidence” vote in a 12-month period. In good times, that’s a fine idea. But in bad times, all you’ve done is take an awkward situation and turn it into a crisis.

 

[Don Corleone]

The first part is OTL (at least in the short term). We created 23 million new jobs and the real median income went up.

Some aspects of the 1990s aged poorly, of course. NAFTA was a bad deal in the long run, and the tech boom became a liability when it became feasible to send white collar jobs overseas.

 

[GeographyDude]

Automation in Manufacturing is Not Hurting Employment | Issues 2020

MI’s Oren Cass explores how automation has been used in manufacturing for decades and does not “destroy jobs”. Cass argues that automation increases human productivity and it’s up to the firm and how they take advantage of the increased production.

www.manhattan-institute.org

That ol’ country boy Oren may have a point!

But if we’re under-producing, we are doing so for a reason. And Oren seems to think it’s just a matter of him pointing it out, and perhaps scolding us a little. It’s not likely to be that simple.

 

[GeographyDude]

It is also fair to point out his charismatic and very much central policy programs meant he secured support from Republicans to advance the economy.

You’d think creating middle-income jobs would be as American as picnics on the Fourth of July! 🐶 🐱

And yet, in a weird way, this both is and isn’t the case.