I am trying to work up a “defense of incrementalism” post, but it’s not inspiring work, and it is Sunday afternoon, and raining, and I’m watching Fast Times at Ridgemont High. So, this will be some initial remarks with more to come. A teaser of the week ahead. Cannily, building my audience.
Regarding Laska’s initial question, can someone be a successful incremental president? I’d say “yes”, but then, like Bill Clinton, you will leave a light footprint on history. Is WJC the least-influential president to serve eight years? Here’s the list:
- George Washington
- Thomas Jefferson
- James Madison
- James Monroe
- Andrew Jackson
- Ulysses S. Grant
- Grover Cleveland (non-consecutive terms)
- Woodrow Wilson
- Franklin D. Roosevelt (served 3 full terms, died early in 4th term).
- Dwight Eisenhower
- Ronald Reagan
- Bill Clinton
- George W. Bush
I would rank WJC ahead of Ulysses Grant and Grover Cleveland. To be fair to Cleveland (although, why?), Gilded Age presidents were not expected to do anything. But, as a Democrat, he makes Clinton look like a member of the Red Brigades.
He vetoed Civil War pensions for Union veterans. He used the army to put down labor unrest. Vetoed drought relief for Texas farmers and generally just helped New York and Philadelphia financial houses put the screws to farmers in every state. He stood around and mumbled about tariffs while a grinding depression gripped the country in his second term.
I would rank everyone else on this list higher than WJC in terms of the sustained influence of the actions taken during their presidencies or because of how they came to embody their times.
One thing not on Laska’s list of WJC’s accomplishments is his defeat of the Contract with America after the 1994 debacle. It’s a defensive achievement, but significant nonetheless.
I recommend Nick Littlefield’s recent Lion of the Senate: When Ted Kennedy Rallied the Democrats in a GOP Congress. It’s about how Ted Kennedy (working closely with the Clinton White House) rallied the Democrats in congress in the months after the 1994 elections, When Newt Gingrich and team were trying to write the Contract with America into law. It’s a terrifying reminder of how bad things were for the Democrats back then. It also shows what a heavy lift it was to pass that minimum wage increase that is also on Laska’s list.
In at The End of The World 
“It’s a terrifying reminder of how bad things were for the Democrats back then”: Yes, when I think back, I’m amazed to recall it. I think Laska has somewhat ruled out this defense of Clinton Democrats, and I get that, but it’s amazing that we somehow even *had* eight years of Clinton and eight years of Obama (and Gore was elected too). The question is always “so why is that a victory, if it only mimics conservatism,” and I get that too. I don’t know that it is a victory, really. Once the parties aligned as liberal-v.-conservative in ’68, the whole situation became impossible, and maybe the kind of “defensive victories” CVFD notes here are all we can expect from Dems. Once again, far from inspiring. But hey, that’s my thing.
LikeLike
Furthermore: I think this list of presidents is kind of begging the question. Before ’68, was the idea of incrementalism vs. non-incrementalism even a thing? Eight-year presidents might have a big impact or not, but there’s no one-to-one comparison on the incrementalism factor, because Clinton was the first eight-year incrementalist, kind of invented it and made it the standard Dem routine.Which relates to my (long) post earlier today. The only fair comparison of Clinton on “can an incrementalist have big impact” would be with Obama. And with the next Clinton, if we get that far, and if she gets eight years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And just on cue, Paul Krugman arguing in Rolling Stone that Obama is of the most consequential presidents in history. Certainly, the most consequential and successful presidents in american history. If Hillary wins, you could fairly call this the age of Obama. And date the start to, like sometime in 2006. Have only read the first couple of paragraphs so can’t comment further.
LikeLike
Not ready to comment smartly. Just wanted to mention that I’m now instapapering our blog posts.
LikeLike
Meantime, I like the idea of amending the WJC list by adding both Contract (defensive) and Social Security reform/privatization (attempted). At that point, we move into even murkier territory as we try to suss out what WJC’s deepest beliefs are.
LikeLike
We should also add financial reform that repealed all the crucial parts of Glass-Steagall. Chalk that one up on the dark side of the ledger. Though it might move him up the lasting influence rankings.
LikeLike