Opinion Columns & Blogs

Charles Krauthammer: The center left is dead, buried

The center-left, triangulating, New Democrat (Bill) Clintonism of the 1990s expired of unnatural causes.
The center-left, triangulating, New Democrat (Bill) Clintonism of the 1990s expired of unnatural causes. AP

How far they’ve come. And I’m not talking about the GOP, whose front-runner representing 37 percent of the Republican electorate has repudiated post-Reagan orthodoxy on trade, entitlement reform, limited government and Pax Americana. I’m talking about the Democrats.

The center-left, triangulating, New Democrat (Bill) Clintonism of the 1990s is dead. It expired of unnatural causes, buried – definitively, if unceremoniously – by its very creator.

The final chapter occurred last week when, responding to Black Lives Matter hecklers denouncing his 1994 crime bill, Bill Clinton unleashed an impassioned defense. He accused the protesters of discounting the thousands of lives, mostly black, that were saved amid the crack epidemic of the time because gang leaders and other bad guys got locked up.

Yet the next day, the big dog came out, tail between his legs, saying he regretted the incident and almost wanted to apologize. It was a humiliating recantation obviously meant to protect his wife’s campaign, which depends on the African-American vote to fend off Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

It’s one thing to argue that the law overshot and is due for revision with, for example, a relaxation of its mandatory-sentence provisions. It’s quite another to claim, as does Black Lives Matter, that it was a vehicle by which a racist criminal justice system destroyed the lives of young black men. Hillary Clinton, catching up to Sanders, has essentially endorsed that view.

Bill Clinton changed the image of the Democratic Party 25 years ago by daring to challenge the reverse racism of Sister Souljah. His having to bow to this new – false – orthodoxy symbolizes perfectly how far the Democratic Party has traveled since the Clinton era.

But the 2016 undoing of classic Clintonism hardly stops there. Take trade. It was Bill who promoted and passed NAFTA. Although Hillary criticized NAFTA when she ran in 2007-08, as secretary of state she returned to her traditional free-trade stance, promoting and extolling the Trans-Pacific Partnership as trade’s “gold standard.”

Now dross, apparently. She came out against the TPP, once again stampeded by Sanders and the party’s left – i.e., its base.

At the core of Bill Clinton’s foreign policy lay the notion of America as the “indispensable nation.” It is today quite dispensable, indeed a nation in retreat – from (Hillary’s) reset with Russia to the Iranian nuclear negotiations (which Hillary initiated with secret meetings in Oman in 2012) to the disastrous evacuation of Iraq in 2011.

How far has the party moved left? Under Bill Clinton, it gave up on gun control after stinging defeats in the 1994 midterms. Today, Hillary Clinton delights in attacking Sanders for being soft on gun control. Malleable, she is. And she sure knows her party.

It is nothing like her husband’s party. Which is why she campaigns as Bernie lite – they share the same goals, she says, but she can get things done.

Hence the greatest irony of all: For the past decade and a half, the main propellant for the Hillary-for-president movement has been the rosy afterglow of Bill’s 1990s, the end-of-history era of peace, prosperity and balanced budgets.

Want it back? Vote Hillary. That’s the tease. Yet a Hillary victory would yield a Clinton redux animated not by Bill but by Bernie.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.

  Comments