Clinton Redux

Via EMD, Duncan Currie has a worthwhile read in Weekly Standard. Like Teixeira, I think Currie misses more than a few points, but there's some good points raised nevertheless. Currie attempts to split the appeal of Clinton via his personality and his message to suggest that Clinton's 1992 message is no longer salable within the party and therefore, the transformation that he had hoped to make of his party is ineffective.

Like many who were closer to the scene, I think it's impossible to separate Clinton's charisma from his message. Without the charisma, Clinton would not have been able to craft the message in quite the manner he did. Clinton didn't just keep his liberal base in tow ... he pulled a Sister Souljah while still keeping his African American support solid (Jesse Jackson's irritation aside, notwithstanding). Clinton spoke to out-of-work voters on the need for free trade and a more open economy, fully acknowledging the risks ... all while not merely keeping voters "in tow," but excited, enthused, and energized. That comes as much from charisma as it does from mere words.

In other words, it wasn't the mere weight of words that compelled voters to rally behind Clinton. Nor was it some "rock star" personality hype. The two went hand in hand and accentuated one another.

As for Clinton's transformation, I think there's more than a few points to prove Currie factually wrong. First, count the number of times Democrats use the phrase "fiscal responsibility." That didn't happen outside of Leon Panetta press conferences prior to 1992. Secondly, check the Deaniac drive to point out that their cult hero is "really a centrist" because he's got that A-rating from the NRA. While I've always found that explanation laughable, it belies a couple of things ... for one, there's a greater appreciation of second-amendment rights, at least to the point where it's been de-emphasized post-Brady. Secondly, it demonstrates to some degree that "even the liberal base" will accept Democrats who hold some sort of contrarian position. Granted, I tend to be personally dismissive of those who allow for such exceptions so long as they don't really affect anything (ie: Harry Reid's moderate pro-life position = fine ... Max Baucus on tax cuts = not fine). When Bill Clinton flew back to Arkansas to ensure that Ricky Ray Rector sizzled properly in the chair, there was a minor kerfuffle, but a far greater realization that the party had to "get right" (as opposed to "move right") on crime after 1988 showed the importance of the issue. Despite a healthy anti-death penalty sentiment on the left, there's no litmus tests on the issue and an avowed pro-death penalty Democrat is hardly an anomaly. Acceptance of some range of discordant views is a healthy sign for any party and the perception of the party post-Clinton compared to pre-Clinton is still night and day. Hard to argue that a transformation hasn't taken place based on that. But if I hear greater calls from Democrats to create a national industrial policy (ala Gephardt-1988 or Hart-1984), I'll gladly revisit the matter.