HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Yesterday I commented on how the early missteps on ethics rules changes by the GOP House leadership reminded me of similar mistakes Clinton made early on in his administration. Today, Andrew Sullivan makes the case for another Clinton parallel, this time between his disastrous attempt at health care reform and Bush's proposed Social Security plan.

Here's the lead

Recall 1992. Bill Clinton had a simple choice between two large and difficult reforms. One was related to health care; the other to welfare reform. The health-care project warmed the hearts of the president's liberal base; it had proven an electoral winner in states like Pennsylvania; it was dear to the co-president, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Welfare reform, in contrast, offended a large chunk of the Democratic base; was unpopular among many congressional Democrats; and was just as difficult to get through Washington. So Clinton chose health care. He chose wrong. It cost him the Congress in 1994, and the health-care debacle dented the centrist image that Clinton had worked so hard to secure for the Democratic Party. If he had reversed these priorities, who knows what he might have achieved--both for the long-term prospects of the Democratic Party and for the country as a whole? I may be wrong, but I'm getting a feeling of déjà vu with George W. Bush's first major second-term decision. He has clearly decided to make Social Security partial-privatization the centerpiece of his second term. The alternative would be a real attempt at tax reform--simplification, the eradication of loopholes, and reduction in basic rates--1986-style or even more ambitious. Both ideas are ambitious ones; and neither would be easy. Doing both at once is a nonstarter. But doing Social Security first strikes me as a big, Clinton-style mistake. And for somewhat similar reasons.

Instead of "reforming" Social Security, Sullivan suggests Bush would do better to focus on reforming the tax code. What's particularly interesting about his argument is his focus on how each choices helps define and redefine the meaning of "conservatism" in the United States. His line of reasoning is something I hadn't really considered before, and I have to say it makes sense. One of the most baffling things to me about Bush is the way he's virtually abandoned much of the traditionally "conservative" approach to budgets and taxes. Short term it's worked for him, but I continue to believe that long term Bush is doing pretty severe damage to the "conservative" cause. Among other things, that's why I'm convinced we'll see a civil war within the GOP over the next few years.

In the meantime, however, this piece ads an interesting new take to consider. Kudos again to Andrew for another though provoking piece.

--------