State of the Union Preview: Obama Pitches Some (Good and Bad) Clintonism

If reports are accurate, we’re going to see the best and the worst of Clintonian governance during the State of the Union speech.

First, a bone to those Blue Dogs — who have been just swell this whole year — and an attempt, perhaps, to take some of the sting out of those oh-so-accurate charges of socialist perfidy emanating from Wingnuttistan:

    President Obama will call for a three-year freeze in spending on many domestic programs, and for increases no greater than inflation after that, an initiative intended to signal his seriousness about cutting the budget deficit, administration officials said Monday.

Actually, it’d basically be a freeze on transportation spending and a few other totally unnecessary programs (yes, that’s sarcasm) — air-traffic control, education, etc.

It’s a grand gesture, but the reality is that somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 percent of the federal budget gets dished out for mandated spending and interest payments. Much of the remainder — the “discretionary spending” — is for military and the intelligence agencies, and federal law enforcement. None of that would count, according to the linked article:

    But it would exempt the budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security…

Everyone knows this isn’t really an attempt to win over “fiscal conservatives.” (Scare quotes because they don’t exist in government, save for a few iconoclasts like Ron Paul). It’s pitched towards David Broder, and it allows military spending to blossom while locking in cuts in other government programs, including important ones (if you freeze spending at current dollars, that’s a cut in real dollars as a result of inflation). Bad Clintonism.

Some progressives, rightly disgusted by the whole concept of “triangulation” after the brutal partisanship of the Bush era, don’t seem to remember that Clinton did some real good, and Obama reportedly has some good Clintonism in there as well. (My take on Clinton’s economic policies can be gleaned from this review of Clinton adviser Gene Sperling’s book, The Pro-Growth Progressive.)

According to the Washington Post:

    Previewing key themes of his upcoming address to the nation, Obama unveiled initiatives to help the middle class by making it easier for people to care for dependents, repay student loans and save for retirement.

    [...]

    … His focus on the middle class will be critical as Obama tries to regain momentum after a series of political setbacks. To that end, he announced several concrete proposals, including:

    – nearly doubling the child and dependent care tax credit for families making under $85,000 a year;

    – limiting a student’s federal loan payments to 10 percent of income above basic living allowance;

    – creating a new system of automatic workplace retirement savings accounts;

    – expanding tax credits to match retirement savings; and

    – expanding elder care help for the “sandwich generation” of baby boomers caring for parents and children.

Without knowing the specifics, I can say these appear to be the kind of non-sweeping progressive policies that the slightly-left-of-center technocrats do really well, and they do have a positive impact on ordinary working families’ economic security. So he’ll be articulating real measures to help out the middle class and working poor. Good Clintonism.

One problem inherent in these kinds of proposals, however, is that despite the relief they might bring to “Main Street” if enacted (sorry about the cliché) they don’t represent the kind of “change” that can fire up the Democrats’ base. If they were to see a signing ceremony, it’d get the right all hot and bothered and, unfortunately, go largely unnoticed on the left.

The other day, Jeffski noted in the comments that Dems tend to do a bad job touting their successes. Part of that is they’re too few and far between. But I don’t think that’s wrong generally — they’ve lost every messaging war I can remember.

But these things are also self-reinforcing. If you can’t pass the kind of bold proposals you campaigned on, then tinkering around the edges in an economy this painful isn’t going to score you a lot of points with anyone but David Broder and the gang at the WaPo editorial board.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer with AlterNet.