What "lesson" did Bill Clinton learn from 1994?

[scheming daemons]

Bill Clinton in his first 2 years was much more liberal than he was in his last 6.

After the 1994 Gingrich Revolution, Clinton declared that "the era of Big Government is over"... and he retrenched and hired Dick Morris and began to triangulate and became a center-right President.

Prior to that, he had raised taxes on the wealthy in his first budget, nominated Breyer and Ginsberg, and was generally center-left.


So I ask you.... before we stupidly repeat history.... do you think that staying home and allowing the GOP to take over the house of representatives in 2010 will "teach Obama a lesson" and cause him to move to the left?

Or will the realities of a Republican-led congress force Obama, like Clinton before him, to move to the right to get anything done.



If you think the lesson the Democrats, specifically Obama - but really all of them, will get from a drubbing this fall is to move to the left, you're a poor student of history and incredibly naive.


The "message" that Obama and the remaining Dems in congress will get from a big GOP win in November will be to abandon the left completely.

Just like Bill Clinton did.



But go ahead.... post your purity-based responses of "I will not respond to fear tactics! Principle over personality! Obama=Bush! Democrats=Republicans!"


This post is not "fear" post, really. 1994 was supposed to teach the Democrats a lesson. It taught them to ignore the left. It left us with 12 years of neo-nazi rule in our congress.


Go ahead. Teach Obama a lesson.

It worked so well with the Big Dawg last time. :eyes:

[Selatius]

1. Quite a lot of Democrats were frustrated over the health care failure and NAFTA.

At the time, Congress was under Democratic control, yet NAFTA was pushed through. A lot of people in the labor movement felt betrayed and demoralized. The health care fiasco didn't help much either. They stayed home in huge numbers that year.

[scheming daemons]

2. And did the results of 1994 make things better or worse after that?

By staying home, they gave themselves a GOP-led congress for 12 years. Did that help the labor movement?

[Selatius]

10. Obviously no, but the argument can fly both ways. The blame lay squarely on Congress too.

Had Congress critters not taken on that gambit per NAFTA or did get together to cooperate on health care reform, an argument can be made that their constituents still would've come out to vote. The wealthy donors who wanted such things will always be small in number, but the people always have the votes. Only a fool would court the rich and forget the people. They chose to obey the small special interests on Wall Street, and many of them were tossed out of office a couple terms later. They sold out.

[spoony]

4. Precisely.

I'm amazed at the people who think we owe politicians votes but that they don't owe us anything in return.

[scheming daemons]

9. So how'd that idea work out for you after 1994?

Did your "staying home" and "teaching Clinton a lesson" help make things better or worse for you in the years after 1994?

[spoony]

19. I wasn't even voting age in 94.

But if you want me to castigate the voters instead of the ineffectual pols who couldn't earn their votes, don't hold your breath.

[Selatius]

30. I disagree with your framing. It's not "teaching" anybody a "lesson." You must earn votes.

If the foundation of your system of government is the consent to govern, then you must earn the votes, to earn the consent. You are not entitled to it. A person who votes for the "lesser of two evils" stands ahead of the line to receive the consequences of his actions vs. somebody who withheld his vote because he thought none of the options were good.

[Luminous Animal]

8. NAFTA is a disaster that keeps on giving. And yes, many Dems not only felt

betrayed and demoralized. They were betrayed and demoralized. That is the lesson that the leadership should take away. Fuck over your base and they are apt to stay home.

[scheming daemons]

11. Whether they "should" take that lesson away is besides the point... history shows that they won't

[Luminous Animal]

15. So the rank & file is supposed to "learn a lesson" even though the leadership

is too stupid to learn one, as well? And we are supposed to rally behind, give up our meager dollars and time to support this stupidity?

[scheming daemons]

16. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still better than not voting at all

Putting the greater evil in power doesn't help anyone.

[spoony]

23. Not really, it's sending the message that BEING the lesser of two evils is okay. nt

[Selatius]

25. I find it sad we've been reduced to groveling for the "lesser of two evils"

Have standards fallen so low? In the worst days of the Depression and WW2, we had FDR and Truman. We had Johnson and the Great Society despite the disaster in Viet Nam. We never would've settled for somebody to the right of center on economic policy back then. There would've been mass protests and rioting, and there was rioting back during the Depression.

[Luminous Animal]

26. That's right! Keep striving for mediocrity.

As we lower the bar, year after year, election after election, someone's back is going to break in this boogy-man's game of limbo. And it won't be the leaderhip from any party.

[scheming daemons]

27. I'm not striving for it... I'm predicting it.

..

[Individualist]

39. Voting for the lesser of two evils ensures the continuation of neocon enabling.

[Luminous Animal]

3. There is no reason to post any response.

You already did not and dripped contempt for your fellow Democrats. Truly you need some lessons in leadership. "To the ramparts, you worthless maggots," is not as inspirational as you might think it is.

[scheming daemons]

5. Not meant to be inspirational... I'm not in that business

Smarter political minds than me will work on the "inspiration" part.


I'm just pointing out reality.

[Luminous Animal]

17. So, your the tough love guy, huh? I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously

when you are treating your compatriots poorly.

[spoony]

6. Well put! nt

[yourout]

7. The wrong ones.

[scheming daemons]

13. Agreed. But history shows that those are the lessons they'll "learn" again

[XemaSab]

12. Dick Morris is the Karl Rove of the democratic party

He's scum, and he should be denounced.

[scheming daemons]

14. Dick Morris is not a Democrat. Never was.

Clinton hiring Dick Morris is like Bush hiring James Carville.

Clinton hired a right-wing hack.



That's the "lesson" he learned from 1994. Not the lesson we wanted him to learn, right?

[Ohio Joe]

18. Sheesh....

You know.... I want President Obama to do more but the idea of staying home at election time to teach him a lesson? Insanity, plain and simple. I vote, every damn time.

[Umbral]

20. More "blame the Left" Bullshit. nt

[scheming daemons]

21. Nope... not at all

You tell me... how did Bill Clinton react in 1994 after losing congress?


Did he say, "well.. I should've listened to the left. I won't make that mistake again."

...or did he say, "fuck the left. I'm hiring Dick Morris and acting like a freaking Republican."



You know damn well he did the latter.



Do you expect Obama to be any different?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. They "ignore the left" to their peril. Ask Al Gore.

[scheming daemons]

24. Maybe so.. But "ignore the left" they'll do.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. So why would the left want to pay attention to somebody ignoring them?

Your logic seems a little twisted and stretched.

Rec so more people can see this.

[scheming daemons]

34. It's a conundrum. If the left stays home, it gets worse. But by voting, it is "condoning"

Two bad options. One worse than the other.


Vote... and encourage the bastards in the Democratic party.

Don't vote... and put the bastards in the GOP in charge, and make the remaining Dems (and the President) move to the right.


Of the two bad options... the first is better.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. So the idea is to eat shit and loudly shout "yum yum"?

[Individualist]

41. Well said!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Which is exactly what they're doing now. "Not as bad" is a piss poor campaign slogan.

And, not nearly good enough to capture the votes of the left they'll piss and moan about when they lose elections.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[corpseratemedia]

28. look at all the disasters ignoring the "fucking retards" has begat for this country

but they'll do it anyway

[Canuckistanian]

29. Staying home solves nothing

Remember, the higher the turnout, the worse it is for the GOP.

NEVER forget that basic rule.

[Imagevision]

33. The fact that Dick Morris actually worked for Clinton speaks volumns, now he's at FOXnews

[Kitsune]

35. It's pretty hard to abandon a constituency that you've done everything possible to undercut.

Honestly abandonment might be a step up at this point. I'm not advocating staying home or voting Republican, that's fucking idiotic, but I don't think anyone can tell me I don't have a right to be infuriated at how useless the Obama administration has been at anything but maintaining the status quo.

[David__77]

36. 1994 should have been the Democrats' 1964.

The lesson is to toughen ideologically and shed pragmatism just like the GOP did after 1964. We need a steeled party of activists, of disciplined organizers. Not a limp agglomeration of leaves blowing in the wind.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

38. Wish I had written that

I have no idea what the answer is.

I was terribly disappointed in Clinton as a president. I had high hopes after twelve years of Reagan-Bush and still remembered Nixon as a kid. I really did not think it could get worse for the country's interests or for the middle and lower classes' economic, health, opportunties, general welfare, etc. prospects than it did in the late '80s and early '90s. Many of us thought the same and that is why we voted out an incumbent in the White House (don't forget Perot had a lot of support in that election as well - that was a GREAT OPPORTUNITY to tap into the frustration that the majority of voters had with the fallout of Reagan-Bush). So, Clinton takes the WH, has a Democratic Congress and ...

So, again, in 2008, after who historians are already citing as one of the five worst presidents in US history is finally heading out the door, a groundswell of hope and very vocal support of a major change of direction lift Obama in to office. I admit, he was not my first choice among the Dem candidates and I voted for someone else in our caucus, but knew enough to get behind the party's candidate in November and cast my vote ... staying at home simply was not an option.

I am at the point now where I am very worried about the future. Not my future, but my children's future. We've always found a way to overcome shit storms in the past as a county. But I don't *think* we've ever had the powers at the top of the pyramid - in government, in business, in other important institutions - working so hard against the interests of the majority. The true irony is that history shows us that if a government works for the interests of the majority, everybody benefits, all boats do rise. Instead, they seem to be working so damn hard to pile all the ships silver into the few life boats of the ultra-powerful, who will simply sail away while the ship sinks, leaving those in charge to drown with the rest of us.

We need help.

[slackmaster]

40. Banning some of the most popular sporting firearms is not a good way to keep control of Congress

:nuke:

[WI_DEM]

42. Well NAFTA came in his first two years, too & DADT