CH: Kill Clinton's Third Way

Okay, I must ask a counter question.

Why can't the Democrats utilize populism to push more left wing economics, while being more socially conservative to assure those groups? I understand why people wanted to go rightwards on social issues, but economics? That's... just a bit different.

The crucial element here is what are the goals of the Democratic Party? I would argue that one central goal is an America where everyone has a fair shot at the American Dream. You can call this equality of opportunity, though that's a weighted term. The point is, one of the constant elements of the Democrats have been that they support policies that increase economic mobility and fairness. Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich. They're all pretty much on the same page. The big difference is how do you get there? From 1933 to 1992, the Democratic Party generally subscribed to the orthodoxy of the New Deal. The basic belief was that the federal government, through the use of regulation and "welfare" (broad term) programs, should be used to promote economic mobility. The Third Way subscribes to the belief that big government is not always the most effective means of addressing these issues. Local and statewide governments often understand the concerns and needs of their constituents better than a federal bureaucrat. The Third Way also sees business and private enterprise as an ally in addressing poverty and economic growth. So while the goals haven't changed, the methods have.

The problem with the Democratic Party becoming a socially conservative party is that it goes against many of the core principals of the Party. Being pro-growth and pro-free market does not. Yes, there will always be social conservatives in the Democratic Party. But suggesting that they become dominant is both unlikely and potentially dangerous for the stability of the Party. I would also argue that populism has little basis in mainstream economic theory and is more about political pandering than smart policy.
 
The crucial element here is what are the goals of the Democratic Party? I would argue that one central goal is an America where everyone has a fair shot at the American Dream. You can call this equality of opportunity, though that's a weighted term. The point is, one of the constant elements of the Democrats have been that they support policies that increase economic mobility and fairness. Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich. They're all pretty much on the same page. The big difference is how do you get there? From 1933 to 1992, the Democratic Party generally subscribed to the orthodoxy of the New Deal. The basic belief was that the federal government, through the use of regulation and "welfare" (broad term) programs, should be used to promote economic mobility. The Third Way subscribes to the belief that big government is not always the most effective means of addressing these issues. Local and statewide governments often understand the concerns and needs of their constituents better than a federal bureaucrat. The Third Way also sees business and private enterprise as an ally in addressing poverty and economic growth. So while the goals haven't changed, the methods have.

The problem with the Democratic Party becoming a socially conservative party is that it goes against many of the core principals of the Party. Being pro-growth and pro-free market does not. Yes, there will always be social conservatives in the Democratic Party. But suggesting that they become dominant is both unlikely and potentially dangerous for the stability of the Party. I would also argue that populism has little basis in mainstream economic theory and is more about political pandering than smart policy.

But the whole reason why the Third Way arose in the first place was to gain electoral success, not because the policies were necessarily more effective than their New Deal equivalents. I suggest Populism because it could also gain them electoral success without having to go towards light corporatism(with all the problems that entails.)

Now, you're right, social conservatism is perhaps a bad idea, but my main point is this. Populism allows the Democrats to continue economics of before, or just promote economics that are more leftwards than Third Way economics.
 
But the whole reason why the Third Way arose in the first place was to gain electoral success, not because the policies were necessarily more effective than their New Deal equivalents. I suggest Populism because it could also gain them electoral success without having to go towards light corporatism(with all the problems that entails.)

Now, you're right, social conservatism is perhaps a bad idea, but my main point is this. Populism allows the Democrats to continue economics of before, or just promote economics that are more leftwards than Third Way economics.

I don't necessarily agree with the premise that the Third Way only originated due to electoral concerns. There have always been moderates in the Democratic Party, myself included. Speaking for myself, I see the free market as a generally effective allocater of resources and preferable to European-style social democracy. The economic growth of the Clinton years serves as a good indicator of what neoliberal politics can bring about. By embracing fiscal responsibility, globalization, and creative solutions to social problems, the third way offers something in between liberalism and conservatism. I subscribe to the ideology of the DLC and PPI, so obviously I'm a little bias. But I sincerely believe that a Clinton-Blair style "third way" leads to very strong results.
 
Well, okay, the reason why I dislike Third Way economics is because I'd argue it gives too much power to corporations, as it emphasizes businesses being paid to do previous government tasks. I'd go on, but this isn't the thread for it.

To tie it into the thread, the main problem I see it causing is it causes the political overton window to go too far rightwards, as it basically makes the choices between center-right and right wing, with no solid left wing option because of how third way economics end up working.
 

FDW

Banned
Well, okay, the reason why I dislike Third Way economics is because I'd argue it gives too much power to corporations, as it emphasizes businesses being paid to do previous government tasks. I'd go on, but this isn't the thread for it.

To tie it into the thread, the main problem I see it causing is it causes the political overton window to go too far rightwards, as it basically makes the choices between center-right and right wing, with no solid left wing option because of how third way economics end up working.

The problem here then is not Politics, but Political Parties, and the two party system that we got stuck with by our constitution.
 
The problem here then is not Politics, but Political Parties, and the two party system that we got stuck with by our constitution.

True, and I actually do have critiques of Third Way economics beyond that, but lets not get into that.

Instead... well, thanks guys, you've given me good options.:)
 
FWIW I agree with you Killer300

As a pragmatist, I admire the way that Clinton managed to get and stay in power using Third Way strategy. It showed he was willing and able to change the political narrative to suit him and the Democratic party.
In some ways, the left got so strident about "right" actually winning the election seemed a distant third in their priorities. In some ways I think Blair's rhetoric was a tad more nuanced in making social democracy sound like good business policy as well.

The progressive in me mourns exactly what you said, the ugly choice between hard-radical right policies and center-right policies that cede too much ground to corporate interests.
 
Exactly, so I guess I'm trying to preserve a genuine sense of choice in this timeline.

My suggestion is that you make significant changes to the 1960s. The events of that decade played a major role in the downfall of American liberalism. Vietnam, racial tension, and crime all drove many voters away from the Democratic Party. The ensuing two decades were the political low-point for liberalism, as its necessary reconstruction and re-branding under Clinton show.
 
The 60s will explode, that isn't preventible, Civil Rights needs to progress, among other things.

No, it looks like I need electoral reform to eliminate the two party system, or I need to use the classic Iran-Contra method of destroying the Conservative Revolution.
 
Top