There was always a lot of scorn for President Obama when he said he had 'evolved' on gay marriage. I guess the assumption behind this scorn is that right is right in some cosmic unchanging way.
In fact 'evolution' in politics happens all the time. The good news for the Dems is they are evolving in the right direction on Social Security now. As Digby says, the Dems have gotten out of the defensive crouch they've been in on SS for 30 years. In the 90s the debate was between Democrats who wanted to cut SS and GOPers who wanted to cut it a lot.
The Wall Street Journal acknowledges this new boldness on the part of liberals but-probably to make itself feel better-argues that this will be a problem for Hillary Clinton as they assume she is still in that same defensive crouch. Digby shows this is an unwarranted assumption:
"The Wall Street Journal contends that this is a problem for Hillary Clinton because she, like President Obama, has endorsed benefits cuts in the past. The article notes that her presumed rival former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is a proponent of expansion in contrast to her more conservative position. But the truth is that nobody knows what Clinton thinks about this at the moment. The last time she ran, cutting benefits was as mainstream as it gets. Indeed, O’Malley himself signed on to something called “A New Agenda for the New Decade” back in 2000 which was filled with all the solvency hysterics and called for “reform” of Social Security. He thought it was a terrific idea to have low income people be able to “invest” in Retirement Savings Accounts so they could save for their own retirement. (Because they have so much extra money …) In his defense, that was the most liberal position at the time."
In fact 'evolution' in politics happens all the time. The good news for the Dems is they are evolving in the right direction on Social Security now. As Digby says, the Dems have gotten out of the defensive crouch they've been in on SS for 30 years. In the 90s the debate was between Democrats who wanted to cut SS and GOPers who wanted to cut it a lot.
The Wall Street Journal acknowledges this new boldness on the part of liberals but-probably to make itself feel better-argues that this will be a problem for Hillary Clinton as they assume she is still in that same defensive crouch. Digby shows this is an unwarranted assumption:
"The Wall Street Journal contends that this is a problem for Hillary Clinton because she, like President Obama, has endorsed benefits cuts in the past. The article notes that her presumed rival former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is a proponent of expansion in contrast to her more conservative position. But the truth is that nobody knows what Clinton thinks about this at the moment. The last time she ran, cutting benefits was as mainstream as it gets. Indeed, O’Malley himself signed on to something called “A New Agenda for the New Decade” back in 2000 which was filled with all the solvency hysterics and called for “reform” of Social Security. He thought it was a terrific idea to have low income people be able to “invest” in Retirement Savings Accounts so they could save for their own retirement. (Because they have so much extra money …) In his defense, that was the most liberal position at the time."
"So, we have come a long way. The former Social Security reformer O’Malley has had a huge change of heart and is now agitating for expansion. The U.S. Congress now features a large faction of progressives and centrists in both houses backing the same. Despite the Wall Street Journal’s assumption that such a change is a “problem” for Hillary Clinton, the way this wind is blowing suggests that she will have no problem at all if, like O’Malley, she has evolved to support it. She will likely have a big problem if she hasn’t."
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/the_incredible_social_security_turnaround_how_democrats_learned_to_stop_loving_benefit_cuts/?utm_content=bufferecbef&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
This is a fact of politics-they evolve over time. For instance, Nixon was not a liberal but in the rear view mirror he looks like it as he-with Pat Buchanan leading the way-came up with the Philadelphia Plan for affirmative action, the EPA and actually supported what would become Romneycare and now Obamacare.
Still, to think that this means he would support Obamacare today is erroneous: assuming he'd still be a Republican today then he'd be inveighing against it like the rest of his party. Similarly look at Bill Clinton who was the pioneer of New Democrats in the early 90s but actually has supported Obama's policies across the board since he took office.
The GOP is conservative party and the Dems are the liberal party but different eras are more liberal or conservative and can obscure the way some major politicians from each party look in the future. If liberals remember this they can stop worrying that Hillary will be too conservative.
No comments:
Post a Comment