Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Change We Can Remember
Will Barack Obama be another Bill Clinton?
Barack Obama's campaign mantras were "change we need" and "change we can believe in." His victory, and the enthusiasm of his more ardent supporters, may suggest that Americans dream of doing what Thomas Paine proposed we do in 1776: "begin the world over again." In fact, underlying the vote is yearning to return to how things were before: before the Iraq war, before torture, before the housing bust, before the recession.
Also before George W. Bush, who has a way of reminding people why Bill Clinton, for all his wretched foibles, left office with a 65 percent approval rating. As Hillary Clinton was fond of saying of her husband's critics during this campaign: "What part of the 1990s didn't they like—the peace or the prosperity?"
Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980 assuming he had an electoral mandate to diminish the size of government. Once there, he found that Americans are a conservative people—in the sense of wanting to conserve what they have, especially any benefits they get from Washington. Result: The welfare state survived with little change. Obama may likewise discover that the appetite for new policies is smaller than it appears.
In his speeches, the candidate spent more time extolling the need for change than specifying exactly what form it should take. His calculated imprecision allowed voters to assume that the change he was offering was pretty much the same as the change they wanted.
As in 1980, Americans are enduring economic pain that makes them amenable to notions they might once have rejected. It's safe to assume that, like then, Americans are ready to experiment with moving in the direction the new president favors—in this case, toward a more activist government. But it's also safe to assume that 1) they are in no mood for drastic steps that require sacrifice on their part and 2) they will support new initiatives only if they, you know, work.
Obama, as it happens, won by offering voters the same thing Reagan promised: tax cuts. Most of those who supported him did so on the assumption that they would not fall in the class of people who will have to cough up more to the IRS.
Not only that, but many voted against McCain partly because Obama successfully branded his health-care program as a tax increase. Americans are willing to embrace a bigger and more expensive federal government on one condition: that it doesn't cost them anything.
In this respect, the president-elect promises a continuation of the last eight years. With the exception of the recession brought on by the financial crisis, the biggest challenge is a vast array of commitments that have outgrown our willingness to pay for them. Living within our means is not a change Americans can quite believe in. Like Bush, Obama may hope to escape two terms without taking action on that front.
Of course, Obama would not have been the obvious choice if the goal were preservation of the entire status quo. His promises to abandon President Bush's policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the treatment of enemy captives, health care, and wiretapping contributed greatly to his success.
The most notable change he will bring, though, is the most visible one: putting an African-American in the Oval Office. But that is in large part a validation of changes that have already occurred. It's no longer a novelty that some of our most admired public figures—Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Colin Powell, Denzel Washington—are black.
In this respect, the presidency is a lagging indicator of racial progress. But Obama's uniqueness will make it hard to portray him as moving too slowly to bring about change. His face alone will rebut the charge.
What his admirers and his enemies have in common is overestimating how much change he would, or can, bring about. Obama is an inspiring figure, but also a shrewd conventional politician who leaves the windmill-tilting to others. He is likely to resemble Bill Clinton, without the appetites and immaturity: a pragmatic incrementalist wary of being pulled too far left.
That would probably be fine with most voters, who may love the
rhetoric of change but really miss the way things used to be.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
punk7|11.10.08 @ 7:21AM|#
Ok Chapman haters, start your engines!! I am ready to hear your bruising laments and vapid commentary - Chapman nails this, once again. Obama will be, in the bigger picture, a Clintonian pragmatist, surrounded by moderates that will convince him to bust the deficit and lower (most) taxes.
Kyle Jordan|11.10.08 @ 7:29AM|#
Hopefully. And hopefully no stupid firearms bans but that one I'm not too hopeful about.
Untermensch|11.10.08 @ 7:34AM|#
It's no longer a novelty that some of our most admired public figures-Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Colin Powell, Denzel Washington-are black.
I find it interesting that you cite Tiger Woods here, a figure who
has consistently and vocally denied the very category you put him
in. He is always quick to mention his Chinese and caucasian
heritage and to reject the assertion that race is a valid category.
In this respect the comparison with Obama is actually quite apt
since Obama himself transcends the stark racial categories of the
older generation.
In doing justice to Obama (and Tiger Woods) it might make sense to
be careful not to reinforce the categories they are helping to
break down.
|11.10.08 @ 7:52AM|#
punk7
The difference between Obama and Clinton, at least for the next 2
years, will be the Democrat majority congress. The balanced budget
was forced by a Republican congress and the tax cuts were supported
by that same congress...otherwise Clinton would never have done
those things. Obama will not be limited by an opposition
congress.
ed|11.10.08 @ 7:55AM|#
It was a vote against Bush and recession.
It was a vote for a young, charismatic guy with a nice
smile and almost no experience.
When all is said and done, what will the pundits name this new
Camelot?
voter|11.10.08 @ 7:58AM|#
A little educational survey...
What govt. evil would it take for you to stop paying taxes in
disgust?
1. Govt. take your money and uses it to lock up innocent
people.
2. The govt. uses your money to lock up black people.
3. The govt. uses your money to murder brown people.
4. the govt. gives your tax money to their friends.
5. the govt. wastes your money on something stupid, or maybe just
burns it.
6. the govt. spend your money on propaganda for higher taxes.
7. The govt. spends your money on brainwashing babies to torture
puppies.
8. The govt. spends your money on researching about how the money
really belongs to them.
9. The govt. "invests" your money in a ponzi scheme.
10. What taxes? I don't pay any taxes!
11. I own a bank, the govt. pays ME taxes.
12. The govt. can do no evil, by definition all it does is
good.
13. I'm too scared not to obey, the govt. has the biggest
guns.
14. I can't help it, they are in cahoots with my employer and
withold it.
15. I work for the govt. Taxes are the price you pay for
civilization.
16. Didn't Jesus say I always had to pay taxes?
17. I'll keep paying, but vote for whoever promises to do less
evil.
(Etienne de la Boetie- discourse on voluntary servitude)
|11.10.08 @ 8:09AM|#
18. The govt. conscripts you during peacetime, for your own
good.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.163:
ed|11.10.08 @ 8:11AM|#
What govt. evil would it take for you to stop paying taxes
in disgust?
Tax protester highjack! Ruuuun!
|11.10.08 @ 8:14AM|#
Rahm Emanuel, John Podesta, Larry Summers. Expect everything we would have gotten with Hillary without the accountability she'd be held to. The Clinton's fail-safe Edwards killer may actually make them richer than had Hillary won.
|11.10.08 @ 8:19AM|#
20. The govt. spends your money on cameras to make sure that you are behaving....
Seward|11.10.08 @ 8:34AM|#
What sort of Presidency we will have will largely be the result of contingency.
|11.10.08 @ 8:34AM|#
22. They spend your tax money on building a casino/bar/brothel while simultaneously spending your money on banning gambling/alcohol/prostitution and spending money to build jails for the gamblers/drinkers/prostitutes
Hogan|11.10.08 @ 9:22AM|#
Clinton also had the benefit of a relatively benign set of foreign relations issues.
|11.10.08 @ 9:27AM|#
I'd have to go with:
25. My government schoolteacher taught me that not paying taxes IS
EVIL!
libertarian democrat|11.10.08 @ 9:31AM|#
Are you kidding public schooled?
At least in my high school, the teachers all played up non-violent
resistance. Including not paying taxes.
|11.10.08 @ 9:33AM|#
I'm still anxiously awaiting the magazine's name change from Reason to the National Democrat Panderer, Semi Libertarian Edition. It doesn't quite role off the tongue, but I'm for accuracy over subtlety.
scotth797|11.10.08 @ 9:33AM|#
He forgot Will Smith and Michael Jordan.
After the money men aligned behind Obama I knew he would win.
People (including my own family) kept telling me he had to climb
this amazing obstacle of race.
I had to remind them that we are in the 21st century, and Americans
will be literally crying in the streets when Oprah dies. Pefectly
healthy women are going to need wheelchairs to get around.
A pretty spot on article by Chapman.
|11.10.08 @ 9:37AM|#
"Tax protester highjack! Ruuuun!"
Ed, that's the price you pay for permitting free speech ya damn
libertines!
Censor your comments like civilized people!
|11.10.08 @ 9:43AM|#
libertarian democrat:
"Are you kidding public schooled?
At least in my high school, the teachers all played up non-violent
resistance. Including not paying taxes."
This is sarcasm, right?
I guess this happens all over the USA, that's why so many democrats
protested against Bush's wars by not paying taxes....
|11.10.08 @ 9:51AM|#
Why is everyone so worried? According the the insightful
analysis from Reason, Obama's presidency will be a pragmatic, free
market utopia filled with gumdrops and sugar candy. Reason's
continued upbeat assessment of Barack's future presidency has led
me to believe that everything is going to go well, as this
pragmatic, Chicago School liberal walks upon fragrant free market
rose petals, sprinkling sane fiscal policy like fairy dust from his
capable fingers. Nothing left to do but sit back and wait for the
bliss and rapture of January, when we'll, no doubt, see the
inauguration of a president who will be far more libertarian
leaning than that closet socialist, John McCain.
Oh wait, that's all bullshit.
libertarian democrat|11.10.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Not at all, Andy. Of course, it is perhaps unsurprising that not everyone practices what they preach, but there was a strong thread of approval for all sorts of non-violent resistance. Also for free speech (even if racist or otherwise unacceptable), as long as it was off school grounds (SLD of course, but debate what you will about public school and free speech, I find that fairly reasonable)
|11.10.08 @ 10:01AM|#
The difference between Obama and Clinton, at least for the
next 2 years, will be the Democrat majority congress.
Didn't Clinton start with a majority Dem Congress?
In this respect the comparison with Obama is actually quite apt
since Obama himself transcends the stark racial categories of the
older generation.
Well, except when he doesn't. He started his political career in
Chicago by joining Rev. Wright's church, let's not forget. And he
has always allowed (at minimum) his minions to play the race card
on his behalf when convenient.
Hogan|11.10.08 @ 10:04AM|#
also, in contrast to Woods being very vocal about rejecting the 'black' designation, a lot of the content of Obama's memoirs (from what I understand, having only read excerpts) focuses on his efforts to self-identify as black in spite of his 'post-racial' background.
OSCAR|11.10.08 @ 10:36AM|#
The most notable change: The president's black! OMG, everything will by super cool now!
|11.10.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Hogan, forget about the writings, just look at who he married. Michele Obama is anything but post-racial. I don't need to hear a whitey tape to know her world view is centered on black victimology.
concerned observer|11.10.08 @ 10:56AM|#
its'great to watcht teh wingnuts here scare themselves shitless thinking "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST".
|11.10.08 @ 11:18AM|#
After that drinking age thread, I am fairly certain that Steve Chapman no longer reads the H&R comments.
Steve Chapman|11.10.08 @ 11:21AM|#
But James, you know that adults under the age of 21 are not qualified to make decisions about drinking.
|11.10.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Obama will be, in the bigger picture, a Clintonian pragmatist, surrounded by moderates that will convince him to bust the deficit and lower (most) taxes.
We can hope.
Mike M.|11.10.08 @ 12:09PM|#
...bust the deficit and lower (most) taxes.
Completely and utterly impossible in any kind of real universe,
especially with the panoply of new spending programs Obama and the
new Congress will certainly have in mind.
We already know that the federal debt is going to increase by
nearly one trillion more dollars early next year, and the line at
the bailout trough just keeps getting bigger every day.
|11.10.08 @ 12:12PM|#
James Ard writes, "... just look at who he married. Michele
Obama is anything but post-racial...."
You've hit upon yet another similarity -- the Clinton first lady
and the Obama first lady. The wives are far more left-leaning than
their presidential spouses.
Bill and Barack are shrewd enough to speak platitudes, to nudge at
the edges and play the game. When Obama voted, yeah, it was very
left-liberal most times, but often enough it was simply "present."
He plays the game well. It's all about appearances. In fact,
already he's started brilliantly, leading the charge for another
bailout. The majority of citizens will love this.
When Clinton won, the right screamed that it was the end of the
world, and socialism had come to America. I guess they had been
asleep over the country's past century.
As Chapman writes, Clinton left Washington in high regard
(poll-wise). It was so high, in fact, that his spouse, the real
"leftie" went to the Senate, and almost to the Presidential
nomination.
I suspect Barack Obama will go the same route as Bill. Timing's
everything. He'll ride the economy's cyclical upturn; he'll make
the government bigger, as did all (and I do mean all!) Presidents
before him, and be remembered fondly.
Most folks want easy access to credit, a job, and avoidance of wars
that we can't win quickly. The fact that it's socialized democracy
doesn't matter. And it hasn't for most of the country's
history.
|11.10.08 @ 12:13PM|#
NHLiberty:
The difference between Obama and Clinton, at least for the next 2 years, will be the Democrat majority congress.
Lest we forget, Clinton enjoyed a Democrat-majority Congress for
the first two years of his first term. Those days were marked by
such excesses as Hillary's health care task force.
It was the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 that took Congress away
from Clinton and gave us welfare reform and a balanced budget (not
counting Social Security, of course).
I predict the same arc for Obama, but with fewer gaffes. And no
blowjobs from interns.
|11.10.08 @ 12:31PM|#
NHLiberty writes: "I predict the same arc for Obama, but with
fewer gaffes. And no blowjobs..."
Now THAT was funny!
And probably quite accurate.
Bloomberg had a good article this morning: "Obama, Candidate of
Change, Looks to Old Hands From Clinton Era"
And so it goes indeed.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
egosumabbas|11.10.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Bah, I wrote a much better version of this article two days
ago:
Obama: More Clinton than Carter
|11.10.08 @ 12:39PM|#
His promises to abandon President Bush's policies on Iraq,
Afghanistan, Iran, the treatment of enemy captives, health care,
and wiretapping contributed greatly to his success.
I don't expect any major changes here. Obama has already signed
onto Bush's concept of FISA. I don't think he'll really change the
way we handle illegal combatants either. About 5% of those released
from Gitmo have been recaptured committing terrorist acts. Two of
them killed 9 people in a suicide bombing in Mosel. I don't see
Obama risking the hit he would take if turned everyone loose from
Gitmo and one of them turned around and killed Americans. Neither
can he make drastic changes in policy in Iran and Afghanistan
without absorbing blame for any negative consequences. Remember he
has to ride things out for 4-8 years. He will play it
conservative.
Bring radical change, especially in foreign policy, requires
sticking his neck out, something Obama has never done. People who
looked to him to radically alter U.S. security policy will be
disappointed.
Hogan|11.10.08 @ 12:46PM|#
i think the test will be how willing or capable he is to resist his own party. so far in his career, he's done about jack shit along those lines. and all he's done lately is accumulate a bunch of favors to pay back. dunno if he's committed enough to tack a centrist line in the face of pressure from congress. could be.
LarryA|11.10.08 @ 1:59PM|#
It's no longer a novelty that some of our most admired
public figures-Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Colin Powell, Denzel
Washington-are black.
Actually, I'd say it is just that, a novelty. In that Obama is the
object of an ongoing celebration for a Historic Event. The San
Antonio paper published a Commemorative Special Section to
celebrate. Everyone I hear on TV is crowing. The symbolism is even
cited here.
The real progress was made last generation. My wife just travelled
over to Texas A&M University to see her favorite entertainer,
Bill Cosby, who was headlining, again, the celebration before the
season's first football game. Sidney Poitier was another such, in a
time when Star Trek got bragging rights for the first interracial
TV kiss.
It is, of course, an accomplishment that we've made it to the
novelty stage.
Didn't Clinton start with a majority Dem Congress?
Yup. 1993-1995. But he signed the assault weapon ban and the NRA
clobbered the Democrats in the 1994 election with "Vote Freedom
First." We'll see if Obama heeds the lessons of history.
Regardless, he's set up to fail. Last night I watched two supposed
Democratic insiders fighting over what Obama's real policies are. I
think his power base has huge expectations on a wide variety of
policies. He's pitched as a superhero, and needs a supervillan to
counter.
Only, I keep remembering what happens to the cities where these
comic-book conflicts occur.
|11.10.08 @ 2:09PM|#
In fact, already he's started brilliantly, leading the
charge for another bailout. The majority of citizens will love
this.
Why? The majority of citizens hated the first one.
I think Shannon Love and Hogan nicely encapsulate the horns of the
dilemma that Barack is on. He's never bucked the party line and
always played it safe, but adhering to the party line now will mean
running some very substantial risks.
Its all Dems in Washington now. Obama has been a cold and ruthless
politician when he needed to be. Is he cold and ruthless enough to
(a) stiff-arm Congressby turning back big entitlement expansions,
tax increases, and bailouts, and (b) piss on his lefty supporters
by staying the course set by Bush on foreign policy?
At this point, nobody has any idea. Including, I suspect, the Big O
himself.
|11.10.08 @ 2:09PM|#
LarryA, I was just thinking how much we owe Hollywood for our
Black president. I usually don't like social engeneering in movies
and TV, but I'll give credit when it is due, and featuring
minorities probably helped people get over their
trepidations.
jg, you remind me of the instance where Bill Clinton refers to
Obama as a Chicago thug. Well, BC knows a Chicago thug when he sees
it. He's been married to one for thirty years or so.
|11.10.08 @ 2:14PM|#
"Why? The majority of citizens hated the first one."
Because the first one was recognized as a bailout of Wall Street
fat cats.
This one is being marketed as a "middle class relief plan."
That's the thing about jokes. It's all in how you tell 'em.
|11.10.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Yea, I never could tell a joke. Hopefully this thread is down page far enough that nobody else sees it.
jtuf|11.10.08 @ 3:20PM|#
I kind of liked Obama when I first heard his speaches. I started disliking him when he ranted against Wall Street in the primaries. I knew he was a clone of Bill Clinton when Obama did a 180 and pushed for the bailout without blinking an eye. Obama will support whatever the polls tell him to.
|11.10.08 @ 3:22PM|#
James, I thought yours ("...married to one...") was actually
quite funny Just needed the Dangerfieldesque ba-dum-ch...
:)
Kendall|11.10.08 @ 6:54PM|#
For those under the illusion Obama was really going to actually
cut spending in any way - "Pay As You Go" is history now:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122628143512612399.html
|11.10.08 @ 10:28PM|#
I predict that 0's actions will prove everything Steve Chapman says about him here is BS, including those of you on here who haven't realized this already.
ken|11.11.08 @ 1:00AM|#
The Obama Campaign for president has truly been inspiration for
most people. His campaign has certainly proven that anything is
possible as long as you put your mind to it.
I am an entreprenuer currently residing in Florida and I have
created what I believe to be most unique Obama merchandise. It is
an exact replica of the plane used by Obama for his campaign.
Durable and beautifully designed for keeping for many years to
come. Check out http://site.obamaplane.com for additional
information.
buermann|11.11.08 @ 6:03PM|#
As somebody else put it elsewhere:
Will Barack Obama be the first black Bill Clinton?
|11.12.08 @ 11:18AM|#
"Most of those who supported him did so on the assumption that
they would not fall in the class of people who will have to cough
up more to the IRS."
and most of the people who voted for mccain would not cough up more
either. that's simply a matter of population.
people making over $200K a year overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Steve Chapman
- Sarah Palin and the Decline of Conservatism, Steve Chapman, November 19, 2009
- Gay Marriage Lost, But It's Not Losing, Steve Chapman, November 16, 2009
- Muslims and Mass Murder, Steve Chapman, November 12, 2009
Related Articles (Presidential History, Barack Obama)
- Mandating Disaster, Shikha Dalmia, November 20, 2009
- Are Tea Parties Racist?, Matt Welch, November 16, 2009
- The Secret Message of Stimulus Spending, Veronique de Rugy, November 3, 2009
- Sanity on Marijuana?, Steve Chapman, October 22, 2009
- In Defense of Fox News, David Harsanyi, October 21, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245