Blanche Lincoln & Bill Clinton Highlight Struggle of Centrists vs Progressives

[Pangloss]

Interesting article in the Washington Post today about how Bill Clinton's continued popularity and Senator Blanche Lincoln's struggle to get re-elected in Arkansas put a spotlight on the ongoing struggle between centrists (edit: meant to say "moderates") and progressives in the Democratic party.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/29/AR2010052902329.html

 

Lincoln comes out of the once-ascendant centrist wing of the Democratic Party and from the Democratic Leadership Council that was Clinton's vehicle for remaking his party en route to the White House in 1992. Her opponents represent the progressive forces that gained significant power inside the party after Clinton left office. She has been targeted for defeat by labor unions, who, as Clinton put it Friday, want to make her "a poster child for what happens when a Democrat crosses them." Her opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act is one of her alleged sins. She also has drawn the ire of progressive groups, who objected to her willingness to turn against the public option during the health-care debate.

 

In office, Clinton signed a controversial welfare reform bill over the objections of many liberals (but with the support of then staffer Rahm Emanuel). He entered into negotiations with Newt Gingrich and congressional Republicans to balance the budget. He embraced small-bore policies like school uniforms in his 1996 reelection, which frustrated Democrats who wanted him and their party to be more ambitious at a time of rising economic prosperity.

 

He remade his party well enough to win the White House twice for the first time since former president Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. By the time he left office in 2001, there was a consensus among Democrats around the ideas and strategies he had promoted, despite the controversy over his personal life.

 

Not particularly profound, but interesting stuff, and I think worth a read.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Pangloss

[jryan]

I don't really fully agree with the premise here in that I don't think Clinton was a centrist when this ran in 1992, and never really became centrist until after his health care defeat and the Republican win in 1994.

 

In that way we could possibly see a far more centrist Obama next year if the Republicans win control of the House and Senate this year.

[Pangloss]

My fault. I don't like it either when the word "centrist" is used to describe people who are moderate but still clearly aligned with the ideological mainstream of their party, so I need to not succumb to that practice myself.

 

The word I should have used was "moderate". The point was just to differentiate him from the more liberal base of the Democratic party.

[bascule]

As someone who spends a decent amount of time in Europe, I prefer to look at things from an ecumenical perspective and call them "conservatives."

 

I also see this as another textbook example of why it's very difficult for true liberals/progressives to accomplish anything in America like they have in Europe... because our only "liberal" party is weighed down by a conservative legacy.

[jackson33]

I also see this as another textbook example of why it's very difficult for true liberals/progressives to accomplish anything in America like they have in Europe... because our only "liberal" party is weighed down by a conservative legacy. [/Quote]

 

bascule; Please explain "conservative legacy" when every imaginable problem in both Europe and the US today, is based on Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Democratic policies, depending on the argument, from the late 1800's.

 

Is the size of Government today compared to 2004, 1990, 1960, especially 1934 larger or smaller and keep it in line with population increases?

 

Is our security as a Nation, any better today than in any year and back to 1776, because of less military, more complicity with sworn enemies?

 

Where in World History has any Nation benefited the individual better than under Capitalism and the free practice of both the individual and those business? Which Government/Society that practiced Government Control, including most or Europe today, done any better?

 

Which Living Constitution or any Charter, has ever lasted longer than that of the US, managed these increased realized benefits that the US adherence (until recently) to an established and firmly maintain mandate for Governance?

 

I would suggest the reverse has happened and this notion that what's otherwise known as Socialism has been the "drag" on Conservatism or the free will of a PEOPLE to determine the future.

 

 

I don't really fully agree with the premise here in that I don't think Clinton was a centrist when this ran in 1992, and never really became centrist until after his health care defeat and the Republican win in 1994.[/Quote]

 

jryan; I would go a little further and suggest Bill Clinton had no idea what he was, centrist, liberal or otherwise. I've always felt Hillary was his driving force from the liberal side and many of his advisors today would be called conservative, he basically going along with the flow for whatever reasons. In connection to my comments addressed to bascule, I've often wondered how history would have been different, with out the Ross Perot factor in 1992, the Al Gore factor on AGW and who knows how many other issues....

[bascule]

bascule; Please explain "conservative legacy" when every imaginable problem in both Europe and the US today, is based on Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Democratic policies

 

I think you just made my point for me

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by jackson33

 

bascule; Please explain "conservative legacy" when every imaginable problem in both Europe and the US today, is based on Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Democratic policies.[/Quote]

 

I think you just made my point for me. [/Quote]

 

My point;

I would suggest the reverse has happened and this notion that what's otherwise known as Socialism has been the "drag" on Conservatism or the free will of a PEOPLE to determine the future. [/Quote]

 

Well the conservative drag was over in Cuba in the late 1950's, most of Eastern Europe in the 1940's through the late 1980's, and there has been no drag in N Korea since the 1950's, Venezuela is currently losing its drag (conservatism) and I see nothing GOOD about any of it. I'm sorry, I just don't understand your one liner...Unless you want the free World to go through the same as those examples.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

bascule; I'll ignore "hemispatial neglect", and it was meant in a humorous way. However I think you confusing Conservatism, particularly Constitutional Conservatism, with Republican, then somehow ignoring the fact that Democrats can also be Constitutionally Conservative. From here you can compare Conservatism with Liberalism and the ideology of the two. Since most the issues discussed on this forum relate in some manner to 'Big Government' more intrusive or (Liberal) opposed to Smaller, less intrusive, it's not really that complicated.

 

Through History, whether called 'Federalist/Anti Federalist', 'Whigs/Democratic' or currently 'Republican/Democratic', each party has represented both Liberal and/or Conservative viewpoints, with respect to Federal Powers. For instance Teddy Roosevelt ®, renowned by many Religious and Social Conservatives was in fact a believer in BIG Government and intrusive into State rights, while Truman, JFK and Clinton (all D's) to some degree were more Conservative, than either of the Bush Administration.

 

I hate to break it to you but the Republicans kind of screwed the pooch when they were in control of the country. [/Quote]

 

With the above, I think any major 'screwed up' policy (in modern times) and since T. Roosevelt has been initiated by Liberal/Progressive/Socialist Democrats, namely FDR, Lyndon Johnson and now Obama and over most those years with a Liberal Democratic Controlled Congress. To the thread and the point, members of both parties, according to their constituent demographics have run their campaigns one way and practiced another. It's here where I believe the predominance has been Conservative in Campaigning and Liberal in practice, the party affiliation of no importance.

 

Since 1945 (64 years) the House was Democratically Controlled 50 years, while the Senate was controlled 44 of those years, while the Presidency was Republican 36 years and all through the FDR 1933-1945 it was ALL Democratically Controlled, both Congressional Chambers...Are you sure the Republicans were in charge during policy changes???

 

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

 

During the long administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933 to 1945), the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress. As a result the Democrats obtained 60 of the 96 existing Senate seats[21](a fillibuster-proof majority) and 318 of the existing 435 House seats;[21] hence the party now controlled two-thirds of US Congress. [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Congress

[swansont]

Is the size of Government today compared to 2004, 1990, 1960, especially 1934 larger or smaller and keep it in line with population increases?

 

Online data only go back to 1992

 

Year     Total    Full-time     
2008  2,768,886    2,518,101
2004  2,733,869    2,445,287
1992  3,046,873    2,736,962

 

http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/

 

in 1990, we were at about 250 million population. We hit 300 million in 2006. Government, as measured by number of employees, has gotten smaller in this time by 8-9%, while the population has grown by about 20%

[Pangloss]

I think you can do that in terms of GDP as well and it looks really efficient, since GDP grew quite a lot in recent years.

 

Maybe not so much when you look at it in terms of family income growth, but that would only matter if income growth were being directly offset by increased taxation, I would think.

 

On a purely generalized, objective scale, I don't think anyone would argue with a statement like "the federal government is really huge". But what is the right size of a government in a successful democracy? Kinda hard to say.

[Sisyphus]

Well the conservative drag was over in Cuba in the late 1950's, most of Eastern Europe in the 1940's through the late 1980's, and there has been no drag in N Korea since the 1950's, Venezuela is currently losing its drag (conservatism) and I see nothing GOOD about any of it. I'm sorry, I just don't understand your one liner...Unless you want the free World to go through the same as those examples.

 

I think that's about as helpful as saying that the Taliban regime is what happens without the "drag" of liberalism.

[jackson33]

swansont, I'm not sure of your point; How many Federal Employees there are does not necessarily equate to 'size of government'. Other factors have determined this, most notably outsourcing government duties and productivity which includes how many it has taken to do the same amount or today many times less the people to do, to what has been true (Computerization). For example and wildly guessing, it may have taken 5m man hours to receive, process and finalize the 40-50,000 income tax returns in 1950, where today 160 million can be done with 1m or less man hours. To say it another way, for what ever government is involved today, would not have been possible in 1950, even for 140m people if every person worked for the government. Another way, AT&T, couldn't even come close to handling all today's communications, by the methods used in 1950.

 

Now here is a link, giving you the actual 'Cost' of Government, per year back to 1930.

 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

 

If you use the actual "outlays" and throw in the 2010 Estimate of 3.8T$ (3,800B), per capita and figuring in inflation (adjusting for), along with the 2009 FY outlays, there would be nothing like it under any Republican Congress. In fact what's disturbing is are the figures in the 1930/40's of budgeted and actually spent, that ARE comparable, even higher deficit percentages, were under a totally Democratic Controlled Congress and executive. Before you mention it, yes I know war's cost money, but Eisenhower®, JFK, Johnson, Nixon®, Bush I and II (R's), had some of the same problem.

 

 

Pangloss; GDP/year is also at the above link, but briefly under Republican Presidents 20 years and Clinton with 6 years with a Republican Congress, the GDP grew from 3 to 15T$ over 28 total years. While it did grow some in FY 2009, it can ALL be attributed to Federal Spending, both Bush II/Obama. It may very well be basically stagnant in FY 2010 at 15.4 (current estimate) even with the Federal spending. That's not good...

 

Family disposable incomes is what has decreased, well actually not increased with GDP percentage wise, in recent years, think since 1995 and can be directly linked to local/State taxes.

 

On a purely generalized, objective scale, I don't think anyone would argue with a statement like "the federal government is really huge". But what is the right size of a government in a successful democracy? Kinda hard to say.[/Quote]

 

Well the European Union is not far behind our Union of States; Their are 27 States and 500 million people, but they did have a 16T$+ GDP in 2009....and their central Government, NATO and ALL probably is no more intrusive into their States, as what was our first 10-15 Administrations, my opinion.

[Pangloss]

None of that seems to support the notion that the federal government is too large on any sort of objective level.

 

You have a bit of a conundrum there as well, because if your goal is for the government to be tiny, then demonstrating that it's too large, using an objective unit of measure, will likely show some level of size as objectively appropriate that is too large for your ideology to support, giving evidence to supporters of federalism.

 

Which I suppose is why you stop at "it's just too big", and take the discussion no farther, right? Or am I wrong? Not trying to put words in your mouth.

[ecoli]

None of that seems to support the notion that the federal government is too large on any sort of objective level.

 

You have a bit of a conundrum there as well, because if your goal is for the government to be tiny, then demonstrating that it's too large, using an objective unit of measure, will likely show some level of size as objectively appropriate that is too large for your ideology to support, giving evidence to supporters of federalism.

 

Which I suppose is why you stop at "it's just too big", and take the discussion no farther, right? Or am I wrong? Not trying to put words in your mouth.

 

Nice point. You have to make a prediction about what you anticipate from government being "too big."

[swansont]

swansont, I'm not sure of your point; How many Federal Employees there are does not necessarily equate to 'size of government'.

 

You did not define what you meant by the size of government. I'm glad you agree we are more efficient.

 

Now here is a link, giving you the actual 'Cost' of Government, per year back to 1930.

 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

 

If you use the actual "outlays" and throw in the 2010 Estimate of 3.8T$ (3,800B), per capita and figuring in inflation (adjusting for), along with the 2009 FY outlays, there would be nothing like it under any Republican Congress. In fact what's disturbing is are the figures in the 1930/40's of budgeted and actually spent, that ARE comparable, even higher deficit percentages, were under a totally Democratic Controlled Congress and executive. Before you mention it, yes I know war's cost money, but Eisenhower®, JFK, Johnson, Nixon®, Bush I and II (R's), had some of the same problem.

 

I don't know that cost = size, but …

 

Looks like as a percentage of GDP it's been pretty stable, and slightly smaller under democratic presidents going back to Nixon, and only slightly smaller under Johnson and Kennedy.

 

You did say we should account for changes in population. Why is GDP not a good proxy for this? There have been a number of years in the past where the GDP increase was comparable to the deficit, and right now our economy is in the tank, so I don't see how a flat GDP has any real impact in the discussion of the size/cost of government.

[jackson33]

Pangloss; On this forum and on several occasions I've listed several ways or means to shrink the size of the US Federal Government. It's off topic, but in my mind the simplest and most logical way would by in all appropriate Federal Revenues (Tariffs/Excise or Constitutionally authorized not included), coming from the States, the States then responsible for all other activity, not delegated to the Federal and maintaining the same Constitution. This might require an amendment, but the current one could be used to facilitate the idea, but this one is still being questioned (second link).

 

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. [/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16

 

 

On April 13, 2000, the organization We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. sent delegates to the U.S. capital to present evidence that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. The evidence that We the People presented is available on their web site — this site will post updates when available.

 

Cecil, of the newspaper/online column called The Straight Dope, has done some research into some of the claims that the 16th was not properly ratified. His columns are online.

 

A very well-researched and literate "tax protester" FAQ has been published on the net. A good read for anyone contemplating a challenge to the income tax. There is also an organization called "Quatloos" that aims to expose all tax evasion scams (and there are quite a number of them). Visit them for more information.[/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am16

 

 

You have a bit of a conundrum there as well, because if your goal is for the government to be tiny, then demonstrating that it's too large, using an objective unit of measure, will likely show some level of size as objectively appropriate that is too large for your ideology to support, giving evidence to supporters of federalism.[/Quote]

 

Yes my goal, if 50 years younger would be to make the Federal Government "tiny" by today's standards, but my discussions here have been on the progressive size of Government, which went ballistic in 2008. The discussion was, which philosophy caused it (conservative/liberal), not whether is was too big, already obvious and growing hourly....

 

Nice point. You have to make a prediction about what you anticipate from government being "too big."[/Quote]

 

ecoli/Pangloss; If this was your point Pangloss, then Government IMP, became potentially to big for future generations in 1936 (New Deal), then with little prosperity added to in 1965 (Great Society) and today (HC) as I vision it's future. I know no one wants to discuss this but current and mandated obligations of the Federal (Forget the massive State Debts today) is over 110T$ and simply not sustainable, I don't care how far out it's played, that 110T$ will not shrink (will increase) without some massive changes and likely sacrifices by today generation.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm glad you agree we are more efficient.[/Quote]

 

Yes, today's government is more than in the past governments, but don't carry that to Corporate Comparisons of 'productivity', it won't work.

 

I can only explain my understanding of size by expenditures but would admit there are other factors. Traditionally in the US and for the Federal Revenues drawn from the private sector (taxes) have been held to 18-19% of GDP. Since this won't sustain the current or expected cost and the Federal is now involved in HC and partially in Financials and proposed more so, along with Utilities (Cap and Trade), the end result can only increase that percentage of GDP required, to maintain, forget reducing projected deficits.

 

On your appraisal of GDP/Expenditure and size ratios, had you considered some time delay of the massive past programs and which party held Congress?

[swansont]

Traditionally in the US and for the Federal Revenues drawn from the private sector (taxes) have been held to 18-19% of GDP.

 

So, by "traditional" you mean "3 times in the past 35 years." (or "Not since Nixon, except for 3 years under Clinton")

[jackson33]

swansont; "Revenues to GDP", has held under 20% of GDP from 1930, the only times they went above were in 1946 and 2001 before the Bush Tax cuts, then 21%. Traditionally the optimum or acceptable draw from the public sector by taxation to maintain a vibrant economy has been thought to be 18-19%. I have no idea where your getting your statistics, unless your comparing outlays, which is not what was said, but here is an easy to read chart;

 

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Federal%20outlays%20and%20revenues

[swansont]

swansont; "Revenues to GDP", has held under 20% of GDP from 1930, the only times they went above were in 1946 and 2001 before the Bush Tax cuts, then 21%. Traditionally the optimum or acceptable draw from the public sector by taxation to maintain a vibrant economy has been thought to be 18-19%. I have no idea where your getting your statistics, unless your comparing outlays, which is not what was said, but here is an easy to read chart;

 

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Federal%20outlays%20and%20revenues

 

I used the numbers from the link you provided in post #11. Yes, I was using outlays. By receipts we've been in that range for all but 10 years since 1930; two of those were during WWII and in four we ran a budget surplus while the economy was booming.

 

How is this evidence that government is too big, or is getting bigger in proportion to the size of the country?