Clin-ton and The Politics of Failure

Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for president on her website today. Senator Kang tells us, "The politics of failure have failed. We must make them work again!" Clinton's record makes me nervous that she will be the candidate to try to make them work again, although there is hope for her yet.

Clinton is the last gasp of the pointless wing of the Democratic party. She is the chosen candidate of the so-called centrists at the DLC, who have been the main repository for conventional Democratic wisdom inside the beltway for nigh on 15 years. This is the kind of wisdom that says don't attack Bush on Iraq. The wisdom that says the passioned, ideologically energized base should accept unity for unity's sake, as long as it's insider unity and not principled unity. The same wisdom that says anti-war activists are out of touch with the majority of Americans. (Presumably "majority" is some sort of slang for "11%", which is the support escalation is getting in national polls.)

The DLC and its ilk, with their money and their insiders, dominated the discourse when top-down media like TV were it. That domination got Democrats control of zero branches of government. Now that the internet has come into its own a little, the passionate people on the bottom have started building their way up. We now control two branches, and it's because we realized the center was whatever real people care about, not whatever the DLC says it is.

Even outgoing DLC head Tom Vilsack has apparently read the writing on the wall about campaigning on failure. In his presidential campaign, Vilsack is staking out a position on Iraq that relies heavily on opposing US involvement there. And fortunately for him, his old friends at the DLC will be supporting him by...backing Hillary.

But leaving the DLC alone for a minute, what did Hillary herself say in her announcement video?

"Let's talk about how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq." How about instead we talk about how you don't regret supporting the war in the past. Let's talk about how when you use the term "war" it makes people think there is some way to win, whereas when you say "occupation" and "civil war" it sounds more like something we shouldn't be a part of (and like what it is). Let's talk about how limp-wristed, squirmy nuances like not regretting giving Bush authority in Iraq but regretting "the way the president used the authority" don't convince anyone you're serious.

"You know, after six years of George Bush, it is time to renew the promise of America." You know, that is most idiotic political boilerplate you could have used. You know, this is the kind of endlessly repeated phrase that sounds great in a beltway strategy session but nowhere else. If you take two seconds to think about it, renewing the promise of America is actually completedly drained of meaning. This is the kind of stock phrase that makes everyone else wonder how politicians can say so many words while communicating so little.

"So let's talk, let's chat, let's start a dialog about your ideas and mine." So let's chat about how I've hired some high priced consultants to tell me that top-down doesn't excite people any more. Let's start a dialog about how I can send signals that I'm hip to the new reality by announcing online instead of in a traditional press conference. Let's talk about how this focus-grouped pandering strategy is actually the only real hope for her campaign: if she really does listen, she will hear how lame her position on Iraq is. She will hear how universal health care doesn't make any sense if it maintains a role for private insurers.

Don't get me wrong: if Hillary wins the nomination, she'll have my vote. And she'll have a better chance of getting the nomination if she does listen to people on the internet. But she's pretty well set up already.

The primary schedule gives a big bonus to whoever raises the most money by having the first four primaries at basically the same time (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina). And with California now looking to join the fray, things will only get more expensive. Clinton is certainly the candidate who can raise the most money. But running a campaign based on advertising forces you to listen to consultants, and listening to consultants means you're not listening to people. Listening to your backers, your colleagues, and your beltway think tanks is the central tenet of the politics of failure. Hopefully Hillary will follow through on listening to the people. The politics of failure can't and won't work again.