On the Political Ineptitude of Hillary
By The Horserace Blogger Posted in Democrats — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Scott Rasmussen has begun publishing a regular “Hillary Meter.” The purpose of this is to track Clinton’s movement to the political center by determining how much of the American public considers her to be middle-of-the-road. I find this to be a fascinating story. Not because I think Rasmussen’s polls are valid, I most certainly do not. But because I think this says quite a bit about Hillary and her political skills.
It is, of course, gospel that Hillary Clinton is a political genius, or something to that effect. She is so brilliant that potential Democratic opponents are warned by pundits everywhere that she will work her secret devil arts on the poor fool who dares cross her. She is that good. Ostensibly, the only hope that humble conservatives have to keep her from being the first female president is some tawdry book by Ed Klein.
I have never understood this. Where do her political credentials come from? It seems to me that she was a great supporting player to a good (though highly overrated) politician. She played the part of the forgiving, intelligent, driven wife with great effectiveness. When she takes center stage, however, the results are quite mixed. She botched health care reform so badly that President Clinton got absolutely nothing from a Democratic Congress. She coined the term “right wing conspiracy” -- guaranteeing that conservatives everywhere would curse her existence until the end of time. She did win that New York Senate seat, but that, to my mind, was pretty unimpressive. She beat latecomer Rick Lazio, who was not a formidable candidate, to say the least (the word “sophomoric” comes to mind).
If her political accomplishments are unimpressive, why is she so feared? Why is she seen to be a political genius? The answer to this question eluded me for a long time, perhaps because it is so simple. The plain fact is that Hillary Clinton is actually one of the worst politicians in national politics today. She is so feared as a brilliant politician only because she is such an obvious politician, which is actually the key mark of a bad politician.
Rasmussen’s “Hillary Meter” gets to a fundamental truth of American politics, first formalized in the 1950s. While his argument is empirically problematic, Anthony Downs’s An Economic Theory of Democracy remains a key work in the discipline of political science. It was Downs who first articulated the benefits of being in the political center. The idea, simply stated, is that voters will vote for the candidate who is the least distant from them in terms of ideology. Thus, politicians find it in their interest to move to the political center, which is simply another way of saying that they try to resemble the politics of the “median voter” (i.e. the voter who has half of the electorate to his left and half to his right).
Like I said, political scientists have aggressively “problematized” Downs’s work. I will not get into the details (but, if you are interested and can find it, check out Donald Stokes's "Spatial Models of Party Competition" from The American Political Science Review). Nevertheless, it remains an important insight: politicians try, to varying degrees, to be reflective of the constituencies which they desire to represent. The best way to do this is to sit in the middle of that constituency. Thus, a conservative governor from, say, Texas, if he wishes to run for President, will try to moderate his views so that he can appeal to voters in, say, New Hampshire and Iowa. Downs’s logic is one of those universal truths that have been operative in democratic politics since its inception. Everybody moves to the center. The basics of this insight have been quite useful for political scientists. Keith Kreihbel, in Pivotal Politics, for instance, uses a Downsian core to predict when and how legislative gridlock will be broken. Jack Kingdon, in Congressmen’s Voting Decisions, traces the critical importance of constituency input for members of Congress, who attempt to be as reflective of their constituencies as possible.
One need not examine academic political science to understand that moving to the center is a common political trick. There are a whole host of Senators who have made subtle shifts in the last year to position themselves for their next objective. In the last year, National Journal has noted that Lindsay Graham, Rick Santorum and Bill Frist have all been modifying their voting records. And, for goodness sake, “Snarlin’” Arlen Specter does his little PA two-step every six years. I have never once seen on Rasmussen’s site a “Snarlin’ Arlen Meter” (though, I must admit, I view that page very infrequently). Why is Hillary’s movement such a big deal?
The answer to this question boils down to obviousness. Hillary’s movement is a big deal first and foremost because everybody notices her movement. Frist and others do not get noticed because, while one can identify their political movements (only through systematic evaluation of their voting records), their positioning is more subtle. But not Hillary’s. There is nothing subtle about her strategic positioning. Not a thing. Everybody talks about Hillary’s political calculations not because they are brilliant but because they are obvious, because everything about Hillary screams political calculation. There is nothing organic to her politics, it all seems artificial.
This is the sign of a bad politician. All politicians do the same things. They all change their views. They all move with the political currents. They are all flexible and pragmatic. What differentiates the good politician from the bad one is that you never notice that the good one is pragmatic. A good politician is as smooth as a well-aged, single malt scotch. Hillary is a bad politician. She is like that bottom shelf blended garbage the ABC sells for $12/handle.
Of course, being a good politician is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for political victory, at any level. Decidedly poor politicians have won every political office this nation has to offer, and decidedly bad ones have lost every office. However, if I were a betting man, I would bet on the good politician, all things being equal. Hillary had enough going for her in NY in 2000 to overcome her political ineptitude (good organization, good ideological fit, lousy opponent), but not for the presidency in 2008. She is too poor of a politician to win that office.
It is an issue of style. Style is critically important in politics. It is the foundation that covers up American politics’ ugly blackheads. It is so important that political scientists who study legislative politics have taken time from their dry, technical research (e.g. “What are the informational advantages of committees?”) to study the issue of political style in depth. Richard Fenno’s Homestyle: House Members in Their Districts is the seminal work on the subject. Argues Fenno, a “homestyle” -- the style that congressional members employ when speaking to their home districts -- must first and foremost build trust. This is a prerequisite for votes. A congressman has succeeded when his constituents hate Congress but love him -- and they have come to feel this way because they have come to trust him. (Note that this does not mean that each politician must come across like Bill Clinton. Rather, they must come across in a way that the average voter thinks them to be honest and trustworthy. Specific styles will vary from place to place and politician to politician, as the latter try to find a good fit between the constituent’s expectations and what he is personally comfortable in doing.) This indicates the essence of good politicking: a politician must put on an affected, strategic personality that nevertheless seems honest and natural. Good style is a necessary characteristic of the good politician.
(If you find this unseemly, just remember that such situations are a necessary consequence of a democratic polity that expects governmental agents to both lead the public and respond to the public mood. The two maximands are often contradictory, and must be covered by stylistic machinations.)
This is Hillary’s fundamental problem. She is a bad politician because she has a lousy style. She seems, always and everywhere, like an affected, calculating politician. This, by the way, is not simply the perspective of a conservative who has always been suspicious of her. The generally sympathetic MSM speaks to the general truth of this argument: they have all been on to Hillary for a long time. For instance, people have been talking about her for 2008 or 2012 since the day she announced for the Senate. Everything she does is filtered through that prism. It is an operating assumption for everybody -- liberal or conservative -- that Hillary calculates in almost exclusively political terms.
The fact that everybody assumes the political when it comes to Hillary is a sign that her style is ineffective. Style is supposed to convince people that this guy (or gal) is one of the “good ones.” It is supposed to build the idea that while most politicians act according to strategic caclulations and follow the maxims of pragmatism, my congressman does not. Hillary actually has the opposite effect. People think that Hillary is more political than the average politician!
There are two key failures in Hillary’s style. The first is not her fault, the second is. First, she is just downright wooden. She does not do public appearances well, at least television appearances. The good politicians (Reagan, Dubya come to mind -- again, smoothness is not the only mark of naturalness) appear natural on television. A natural-seeming politician instantly washes away the belief of all but his most vitriolic opponents that this guy is nothing but a pragmatist. It is difficult to judge a man as calculating when he seems so natural. The bad ones appear staged and affected. Thus, they cannot use television to build that much-needed trust.
A poor TV persona is actually a common problem for many politicians -- and it does not necessarily render their style bad because, for most congressmen, television does not form the core of the homestyle. When one is campaigning for a rural congressional district, for instance, one will have only a minimal reliance on television appearances. But, when one is campaigning for the presidency, television is the medium of the homestyle. And a wooden, affected television persona will damage a presidential candidate gravely.
Style is more than just how one appears on stage. It is also formed by an accumulation of all of one’s public actions. All public activity must be coordinated to match a trust-building style. Thus, actions where the political motivations are obvious are not characteristic of good style because they build no trust. Hillary is frequently guilty of poor political calculation, in that her actions instantly betray her decidedly personal ambitions, and thus damage the level of trust people have of her. This is her second stylistic problem.
Her decision to run for the Senate in NY is an excellent example. It screamed political opportunism. The media is not a very bright bunch, insofar as politicians can frequently pull the wool over their eyes. But they picked up on Hillary right quick. They saw this as an obvious steppingstone to the presidency. Even Hillary’s biggest supporters never deluded themselves into thinking that Hillary was running for that seat because she was so concerned about the problems that face New Yorkers and because she was convinced that she, and no other, was the best person to tackle them.
This latter attitude is exactly the attitude that the good politician will engender in the consituency. It is very telling that Hillary inspired that in nobody.
Another example of poor calculation is her decision to moderate herself on abortion. Perhaps Hillary thought that this would be a grand "Nixon goes to China" moment. The misjudgment in that calculation is that Nixon was already president and therefore enjoyed a respect that a candidate does not. People do not assume the political when it comes to the POTUS -- he is, after all, the national leader. The logic for a potential candidate is decisively different. When a candidate moderate himself on any issue so publicly, but especially on abortion, people instantly and universally ask, "Why?" And the answer to that question is invariably, "He wants a promotion." The strategically sensible way to moderate oneself is either to do it early in one's career (when nobody is paying attention) or to do it through the voting record. Thus, when an opponent attacks one as a crazy right- or left-winger, one can simply respond, "Not according to The National Journal!" In such a case, the moderatism seems perfectly natural, which is exactly the goal.
There is a ripple effect inherent to Fenno’s argument that we can see with Hillary. When a politician has been unsuccessful in developing a good style, a trust-building style, everything that he does is instantly subjected to skepticism. If a constituency does not trust a politician, they assume that everything that he does is political, pragmatic, calculating, etc. This is exactly what has happened with Hillary. A large number of voters (not just conservatives) have a standing assumption that any position Hillary takes is a consequence of political calculation. Her stand on the Iraq War was a perfect example: every pundit simply assumed that she was favorable toward it because of purely political reasons. Failure to build trust creates a trap from which a politician has great difficulty escaping: if everything you do is assumed to be for personal reasons, what can you possibly do to convince the electorate that you have the national interest at heart? Hillary is in this trap right now -- and it is because she has such a poor style.
Flexibility is a necessary part of a politician’s life. Politicians must adapt to correspond to the mood of their electorate. All politicians must do this. What matters -- what separates the good ones from the bad ones -- is the way they adapt. This is their style. Those with good style are those whose political maneuvers you would never really notice . Those with poor style stick out like a sore thumb. This is a sign of a bad politician.
And Hillary Clinton is a bad politician. Ironically her awfulness as a politician is why people think she is so great. Her political moves are so obvious that everybody discusses how “political” she is. “Oooooh...she is so Machiavellian!” Pundits are in awe of how overtly political she is -- and they assume that her overtness is a sign of her excellence. Far from it. As anybody who has read The Prince knows, the true Machiavellian is one that everybody thinks is a saint.
Or, to quote Kaiser Soze, "The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." Hillary is no political devil precisely because everybody is convinced that she is!
Jay Cost, a graduate student at the University of Chicago, is creator of The Horserace Blog. He can be reached at jay_cost@hotmail.com.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | John Kerry: Sore Loser — Comments (44) »
On the Political Ineptitude of Hillary 42 Comments (0 topical, 42 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I follow politics pretty closely, and until she actually won her election, I rarely saw anyone suggest she was a 'genius' as a politician. By anyone, I mean people who are supposed to be experts on the political scene. She had to go to NY to get elected, because she was unlikely to get elected anywhere else. She had an overwhelming advantage over Lazio, simply because she was a Democrat in a Democratic state. She has always been a weak public speaker.
There was zero 'genius' in Hillary as a politician, prior to her winning the Senate election. Since then, she's been more effective, largely because she is advocating for her constituents, and she is moving toward the middle on some issues. She also has mostly kept herself off of tv interview programs.
I think the vast majority of Democratic leaders believe she might be able to win the primary in 2008, but she'll never win the election. I just don't see anyone as impressed with Hillary, as you seem to imagine them to be.
First, an important clarification: I never said she was "unskilled" and I never said she was a "hack." I said that she has a poor style insofar as it relates to (A) television and (B) political strategy in the context of (C) the 2008 presidential election. This makes her a bad politician because it gravely diminishes the level of trust that she can enjoy.
Your response is not actually a response to my column. You are responding to a straw man's column, and he doesn't work at Red State anymore.
Nevertheless, here is a response.
You have mentioned her "high marks" for helping out New York. For the sake of argument, I will cede the point, but with a HUGE "So what?" response that basically boils down to the following:
Can you name a SINGLE politician who does not "work hard" for the district?
District work is politically costless work. Caseworking, bringing in pork, etc. etc only benefits members. This is why they all do it as much as is humanly possible. This does not redound to her credit insofar as every congressman -- the good, the bad, the ones destined for reelection, the ones doomed to be thrown from office -- do this kind of work. This has to do with style, but it does not really differentiate those with good style from those with bad style. So, referencing this does not indicate that my theory "is no longer supported by the evidence."
Also, another key point. Though "caseworking" and pork-acquiring influences style very little for Senators. It is more constitutive of style for House members.
I would add that the kudos she has received quite possibly redound to the credit of my "theory." It could very well be a consequence that everybody thought she did not give a damn about New York in the first place (a common assumption in 2000). Nobody would seriously contend that she is doing more than, say, Larry Craig is doing for Idaho. Everybody is complementing her for doing as much as Larry Craig, which is not actually much of a complement: "you do what everybody in your job does. Good for you!!!!"
Anyway....
I would of course grant that Hillary's style, insofar as it relates to NY, is adequate to attain reelection. But that is primarily because of the vagaries of New York (poor opponents, her high name recognition, good ideological fit, etc). It is decidedly insufficient when it comes to the national stage -- which is another part of my argument you forgot to factor into your response. Remember that I said, "all things being equal" I would bet on the good politician. In New York, all things are not equal -- they decidedly favor the Democrats -- and there are no Democrats in opposition to Hillary.
As for Hillary's high marks in state, I would say that they are not indicative of her political excellence. Rather, they are completely consistent with Senators who are in states that are dominated by one party. Bob Bennett of Utah has super-high ratings and always cruises to reelection. Why? Because he is a conservative Republican from Utah.
...was the implicit premise of Geraldine Ferraro yesterday on The Big Story (where I got the idea for this. This was not a rare event.
And, anyway, it has been an idea since she first came on to the national stage. Many, though not most, have taken her to be generally exceptional.
Right now, we are seeing an example of this in the declaration that "the nomination is Hillary's if she wants it!" Again, it is not a universal opinion. But it is surprisingly common among pundits.
. . .the "Mrs. Wallace" factor--there will be a significant number of voters who will vote for Hillary because they want Bubba back, and some who will choose not to vote for her when they would otherwise because of that spectre. Any strategy to be used against her will take that perception into account, and carefully but ruthlessly turn it into a weapon against her whether or not it is fair to do so.
ok, you never said she was a hack. But here is what you did say:
There is nothing subtle about [Hillary's] strategic positioning. Not a thing.
...
...everything about Hillary screams political calculation. There is nothing organic to her politics, it all seems artificial.... This is the sign of a bad politician.
...
Hillary is a bad politician. She is like that bottom shelf blended garbage the ABC sells for $12/handle.
?
I was operating under the assumption that a reasonable definition of "hack" was someone who is all about political calculation and positioning, rather than genuine desire to serve their constituency's best interests.
With your admission that Hillary is at least serving her consituency, though, I suppose I had genuinely misinterpreted your intent. Your "so what" aside, I think that this is something a politician can rightfully point to with pride of accomplishment. This is why your statement that she has political "ineptitude" is not supported by evidence; even her ardent critics like yourself will not call her a hack, and admit to her having done the job for which she was elected.
however, you also take issue as follows:
"I never said she was "unskilled"
Let us not pretend that accusing her of political "ineptitude" is somehow materially different from accusing her of being unskilled.
If that is a straw man, its your straw, not mine. Pardon me for misinterpreting the words "ineptitude" and comparisons to cheap liquor, however, if it was not your intent.
Is New York as blue as you assert? The upstate denizens would differ. I surmise you've never traveled in New York state, never actually given thought to the 99.999% of the land area beyond the five burroughs, if you blithely dismiss the rest of the state. Hillary has won respect from the denizens of Albany's suburbs as well as the subirbs of NYC proper. You dismiss that achievement, and the kudos of her colleagues in state government across the aisle, without justification.
My only question is, by what quantitative metric do you base this statement upon?
"It is decidedly insufficient when it comes to the national stage -- which is another part of my argument you forgot to factor into your response."
I am aware of no metric that provides data which supports the assertion above. Please enlighten me, so that I can factor this into my response.
...that this might be a factor in the Democratic primary, though I do not think it will be a critical factor. If anything, those two groups will probably cancel one another out.
As for the general election, these voters will not make a noticeable difference at all. Those people who feel one way or the other are either the die-hard Democrats or die-hard Republicans. We always know how they vote.
""the nomination is Hillary's if she wants it!" Again, it is not a universal opinion. But it is surprisingly common among pundits."
all the more reason to dismiss the sentiment, rather than taking it seriously. I am fairly pro-Hillary, for much the same reasons as I was pro-Dean (ie, policy positions). I have no illusion that she has an easy ride to the nomination however.
the nomination does not mean that pundits think she is a political 'genius'. They just look at the existing field for the Democratic nomination and see where the energy of likely Democratic primary voters is. I just don't see anyone saying she's been a great politician. She's done better than expected since she was elected. That's about it. I still disagree with your starting premise that a significant number of people with meaningful opinions on politics think Hillary is a 'genius' politically.
Most Democratic leaders appear to fear she'll win the 2008 nomination, but they don't come out and say it because they know it won't help their own careers.
- Because of Bill.
- Because she has star recognition.
- Because she is a woman
- Because she is articulate
- Because there is a perception she stands against the Republican Behemoth that invades people's personal lives.
- Because America as the "shining city on a hill" was last seen under the last Clinton Administration
- Republicans would do well to prepare now. I am sure that they are.
That was quite a rejoinder. From my read, you argued:
(1) My argument implies that Hillary is a hack.
(2) Hillary can be proud of her accomplishment in district service.
(3) My argument implies that Hillary is unskilled.
(4) New York is no different from the national stage -- and, anyway, there is no way to quantify that it is.
My response:
(1) On the "hackery" of Hillary: what did I say was the key difference between Hillary and other politicians? It is a level of subtlety -- not of character or of motivation. Hillary does everything that others do, and probably for the same mixed bag of reasons (i.e. personal interests, community interests, etc). All I said about Hillary is that her style is such that she does a very poor job of hiding her personal interests. The liquor reference was only an indication of her poor style, which has nothing to do with whether one is a hack.
And, anyway, Webster's relevant definition of "hack" is: "working for hire esp. with mediocre professional standards." I did not assert this. Far from it. Her "professional standards," i.e. her professional ethics, never entered into my piece.
(2) As for district service, if you wish to compliment Hillary, be my guest. I, however, shall refrain. I see district service as being a perfectly legal and not immoral form of patronage. Serving a district helps one gain reelection. The district gets something, the official gets something. That is one of the ways in which our system is designed so that self-interest has community benefit. It exists in an amoral realm. I do not think anybody deserves a compliment for it. Do you thank somebody who has entered into a mutually beneficiary agreement with you? Do you get upset when they do not thank you?
And, should she get political compliments? Well, I had already responded to that in my previous point. If you want to compliment her for doing what everybody else does, that is of course your prerogative.
(3) more definitional fun:
inept: lacking in fitness or aptitude: unfit
unskilled: not skilled in a branch of work
Question: can one have skills (and therefore not be unskilled) and still be inept? Yes of course. A person with no arms might know all the technical elements of a good mental game for tennis, he might have all the mental skills, but is nevertheless unfit to play. Skilled but inept.
My argument was that while Hillary is not unskilled in terms of politics, while her style is not completely occupying the null set, while her style is sufficient to run and win in NY, it is nevertheless insufficient for winning the White House.
(4) Your surmise about my worldly travels could not be more wrong, and I am honestly surprised you would wager such a statement, given that you do not know anything about me. I spent every summer in Dunkirk, NY during my youth, and I have traveled there every summer since. And, seriously, New York is that blue, dude. It just is. Do you need me to whip out my copy of The Almanac of American Politics and quote you Clinton, Gore and Kerry's margins of victory statewide? I can do that if you want. There are Republicans in Vermont, but that does mean that Vermont is a swing state. It's like saying Howard Dean is a conversative. You can say it, but saying so don't make it so.
How does one quantify Hillary's ineptitude on the national stage? First of all, I would eschew the word "metric", for you are implicitly expecting a standard which you yourself cannot meet (for you have no such certain standard to declare so decisively that I am wrong). I would agree to a more broad, "upon what basis can you claim this?" The answer is found when we demonstrate that Hillary's style is sufficient for New York but insufficient for the nation. This implies a discussion of Hillary's style as well as the difference betwee NY and the USA generally.
With that clarification, we actually have one of those "fun with quotations" situations. You actually excised the portion of my piece that implied such bases: "(poor opponents, her high name recognition, good ideological fit, etc)." That can show the difference between the national polity and New York on the one hand (with, of course, the exception of name recognition). On the other hand, to demonstrate Hillary's poverty at her style, well that was the point of my whole piece, laying out how her style is poor.
Side note: This is an interesting situation. I'm arguing with you that Hillary is not that skilled, and I'm arguing with another fellow that it is common knowledge that she is not that skilled. How 'bout that!
Is there a lot of candy there?
I'll agree with you that her style needs polishing.
The rest, I see you're playing a semantic game of "I called her this but not that". If your intent truly was for the reader to parse your meaning at such a level of (Clintonian?) granularity, then you have my sincere apologies for misreading your work. I will accept your clarifying remarks that Hillary is inept, but not unskilled; that Hillary is opportunistically positioning herself to the center, but is not a hack. I will make sure to have Webster handy for your next post.
I will not however accept that because (as you also graciously concede) that since metrics for your assertions do not exist, your analysis is any more weighty than the booster clubs at welovehillary.org etc. You wanted me to "factor into my response" those assertions, but since you lack the evidence, I will refrain. I did not, as you imply, attempt to insinuate the opposite assertion, I only asked you for evidence of yours.
Yes, I quoted you selectively by the way; but not out of context. The quotes were to illustrate why a casual reader might get the impression that your opinion of Hillary;s political skills were inept rather than hack, etc. Those quotes are my evidence for my apparent misunderstanding of your point, for which I have duly apologized above.
As for New York, are you simply color blind, not to notice swaths of red in New York state? You seem to favor anecdotes over hard data, but the truth is that Manhattan alone does not New York make, anecdotes from Dunkirk to the contrary or no.
Everyone here has made good points, but each have only covered part of the story.
My thoughts:
Hilary will be a `political genius' because the MSM (mainstream media) will tell us it's so.
It will be `her turn' because the MSM will tell us it's so.
It will be the `year of the woman' in politics because the MSM will tell us it's so.
Hilary might not have a cakewalk, but she'll climb over as many bodies as she needs to. Bill always liked to be the underdog and Hilary will enjoy that too. This `tough' primary season will show the nation that she's ready to move up.
Anything, and I mean anything, said about her will be called an attack. Even if at the time she's hip deep in the blood of her opponent (rhetorically)
...you should be more careful when you read, friend. Because I honestly do not think I am asking that much of ya!
Because, surprise surprise, words mean things. And it just so happens that I choose my words very carefully.
And I also do not "lack evidence." I actually did ya one better than just provide evidence. I have provided you with both theoretical underpinnings as well as evidence. You find it inconclusive. Good for you. You can say I have not made my case. Fine. But it still exists.
(A) Theoretical underpinnings: Downs, Fenno
(B) Evidence: the widespread and frequent assumption that Hillary's motivations are strictly political (Senate 2000, abortion modifications, constant talk of presidential ambitions, Iraq War) [Note: I am not saying that the assumption is valid. I am making use of the assumptions themselves -- the fact that people assume this of her.]
And, anyway, I do not think that the evidentiary standard is higher than this, given the theory upon which I am relying and the common knowledge that everybody thinks Hillary is political. Your problem with evidence leads me to wonder if we are talking past one another. I am not talking about the way Hillary objectively is. I am talking about the way she is perceived. This is not at all a typical "bash Hillary" piece. Far from it. I am actually arguing that, in terms of intentions, she is just like everybody else in politics; the reason people think she is not is because her style is worse than everybody else.
Recap: Among other things, good politics is about being political without being noticed as being political. Hillary's problem is that everybody notices when she is political. And it is also that people often assume she is being political even when she is not necessarily being political. I assume you have no problem with the theory I am using. If you think I have not made my case, or that I am wrong, you are implicitly asserting that people do not generally assume her as always being political. (Whether or not she actually is political -- which was the center of your original objection -- does not enter into it.) It seems to me that you have a long way to go to get to proving that assertion, because it seems to me that the Hillary-is-always-political attitude is pervasive in American politics (it was so pervasive that I did not spend time deploying more evidence to demonstrate its pervasiveness -- just like if I wrote, "The Earth is round" I would not bore you with the mathematical calculations that prove it to be. It is common, uncontested knowledge.).
As your contrary evidence, you put forth the home district work argument, which I have found to be insufficient insofar as my discussion relates to the presidency. I actually also found the "kudos" she has received to be indicative of my broader point.
(And, furthermore, just because I demure from using the word "metrics" does not mean that my argument is as weightless as your average booster's. I put together a theoretical underpinning and rallied evidence to derive a conclusion based upon that theory.)
So, you see, it is not that I have an aversion to hard data. It is just that, in some instances, hard data is necessary to prove a point because the point is highly contested. In other instances, it is not. The point I was making, "People generally think Hillary is highly political," in my judgment, falls into the latter category.
Oh...this was a good one:
"As for New York, are you simply color blind, not to notice swaths of red in New York state? You seem to favor anecdotes over hard data, but the truth is that Manhattan alone does not New York make, anecdotes from Dunkirk to the contrary or no."
I found this funny. You are the one who pulled me into the anecdotal game -- with your taunt about my absence from the Empire State -- and then condemn me for playing. OK.
I guess I do need to give ya some hard numbers. Gore got...OOFF!!!...60 whopping percent in 2000 in NY. Clinton got 61%. As you know, the national % for both was 49%. In case you are interested, Gore pulled in 60% in MA in 2000 and Clinton 61%. So, I am willing to grant that NY is as "swingy" as MA.
Not enough hard data? In 2004, 46.7% of NYer voters were registered Democrats. 27.9% were registered Republicans. Nationwide it was 37-37.
Swaths of red are pretty (though my favorite color is green), but that don't make 'em relevant for the discussion at hand. If we were talking about NY 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, etc -- it would be relevant. But we are discussing New York in the aggregate.
...they were talking about Hillary's political excellence.
"I am not talking about the way Hillary objectively is. I am talking about the way she is perceived."
now he tells me.
Will read the rest in more detail and see if there really remains disagreement or not, later.
I ask because I have the strong impression that you could do a search-and-replace of "Hillary Clinton" for "Richard Nixon" and fail to do any violence to the essential sense of your post. They're both extraordinarily artificial politicians with equal reputations for Machiavellianism and technical political competence.
There's a certain class of sincere dissembling which reassures while never fooling the target audience. The transparently insincere, like Hillary Clinton and Dick Nixon, offer their constituency an "easy puzzle" - Joe Voter thinks he knows that politician, because he's not a complex public personality. The lie is open, and delivered in such a fashion that it's a commonly-understood lie. With Nixon, it was the parthian shot smear, half-stated then negated in the same breath. With HRC, it's transparent triangulational positioning.
His entire article was about how Hilary is percieved, and how this is a big problem for her.
And you missed this?
But I think we confuse Nixon's post-Watergate reputation with how he was viewed before that. He was viewed as a politician, of course, but I don't think he had the aura of slime that he had afterwards. His most memorable moment before becoming president, after all, is probably his "dog Spot" speech, which greatly humanized him.
Moreover, Nixon got to the Whitehouse over a self-destructing Democratic party. Its not clear he could have beat a tough opponent. Hilary may be lucky enough to benefit from a Republican implosion, but I doubt it. The better assumption is that she will face a tough fight from the GOP in 2008.
I hope Jay is correct when he argues that Hillary doesn't have what it takes to get elected president, but I feel she has a very good chance for a variety of factors. First, Hillary is not just a woman but a woman with high name recognition who has the first real shot any woman has had at the presidency. The last factor makes here irrestable to the MSM - whose job it is to fit the raw material of events into dramatic memes, otherwise known as 'stories'. Hillary "First Woman President" - purrfect fit, as Cat Lady would say. I also think there is a long standing perception that she would make a better president than her husband. If you liked Bill, then a Clinton without the bimbos is attractive. Also there is the 'Lady Di' meme - 'the wronged woman' that will play in her favor.
Next by 2008 the feeling that it is time for a change will help any democratic candidate - Bush really does grate for a lot of people and I think whoever gets the democratic nomination the Republicans will need a strong candidate to hold the white house in 08. Hillary benefits in particular, because she is associated with the last sucessful Democratic president. (Sucessful in the minds of those who would consider voting for her that is.) I can already hear 'Happy Days Are Here Again' three years into the future.
But most of all I think it doesn't matter that Hillary's moves are transparent because she is the last best hope of the Democratic party to put up someone who has genuine centrist credentials. (I think she is left of Bill, but genuinely to the right of the Dean wing.) Unless she outrageously alienates them, the Dean wing will vote for her regardless because of the first woman president meme and because they smell victory. And the middle will vote for her because she probably will have built a solid, if somewhat deceptive, centrist reputation by 2008. In short, I think from the present perspective she has a winning hand. It also very much remains to be seen - as Jay's post argues - if she has the skill to play that hand sucessfully. Like I said I hope Jay is right and I'm wrong. I neither like her nor trust her.
no one can deny that. She quite visibly holds back on her liberal instincts when she thinks there is more opportunity elsewhere, ie most recently on the abortion front, and her attempts to navigate more towards what - from the left - is seen as a pro-life, almost traitorous never-give-an-inch position. But she does this because of the correct previous statement that she knows that she has the left in her pocket. You could catch her on video slaughtering innocents with a machete, and that would still hold.
Its the center she needs. She will have a smart political team behind her to get her there.
I guess the only thing that pisses me off about her more than anything else is the astonishing vanity it takes to wear blue contact lenses when your eyes are really brown. I cringe when I think of it.
Nixon always had that reputation, as far back as the Pumpkin Papers incident, mostly because he always had that personality. "Tricky Dick" was a coinage of the early 50s, and the left has been hating him ever since he took down Alger Hiss. He used the smear-and-deny gag in his first election, linking his Democratic incumbent opponent in the 1946 Congressional race with a communist-associated PAC by indirection and half-statements - the gag being that said opponent had taken money from a PAC with a similar name to the communist-associated one.
Also, Nixon had to give the "Checkers" speech because he had gotten caught with his hand in a slush fund during the 1952 Presidential race. It was, famously, one of his "tricks" - yes, people are saying terrible things about me - and my little dog, too! Isn't he cute? Isn't that awful? Now let's not talk about the slush fund I'm not going to mention any more. It was the most transparent ploy imaginable. People have been talking about it for over fifty years now. It was the polar opposite of "subtle".
And, somehow, it worked. Heck, he even got elected Vice President, and then re-elected. People thought they knew what kind of trickster they were hiring. The kind who would argue rings around commies, and end up waving their own rhetorical underwear at them from the podium in the midst of a debate.
I don't think the comparison to Nixon works. Among other reasons when Nixon first ran for the White House in 1960 he had a long political career including time in Congress and 8 years as VP.
I think that HRC compares better to John Kennedy.
Short but much talked about political career
Famous family as a political base
Both would be firsts, JFK Catholic, HRC woman
Both had to move to the right to win
Like JFK, HRC will have to `prove' she is right enough on defense
Both are, to some extent, are tainted with scandal
Both have/had spouses that were at least as well known as they are and both spouses could `suck all the air out of a room.'
Both were/will be billed as their parties hope after 8 years of GOP rule.
And I would expect that HRC will in all ways possible wrap herself in the seem type of JFK rhetoric:
We dare not forget today with our revolution that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, that the torch has been passed to a new gender of Americans -- proud of our feminine heritage...
Or something to that effect.
...is in the medium. Nixon was not good on television, but that does not mean he had a poor "style," as I am using the phrase. Television mattered less.
That's an interesting analogy. We will have to find a better candidate that the GOP put up in 1960 then (Nixon).
My first clear memory about anything political was of Nixon standing on the stage, his hands high in the air in the "victory" gesture (peace signs?), and the crowd wildly chanting "FOUR MORE YEARS!". That was the 1972 Republican convention, and I was 9.
Nixon was enormously popular in 1972. How many states did McGovern win? One?
Hillary may be that popular among Democrats, but not the whole country.
He couldn't even say, "Sock it to me" properly on Laugh In.
...I told you (and everybody who read) before...in my original column. Quoting my piece.
All politicians do the same things. They all change their views. They all move with the political currents. They are all flexible and pragmatic. What differentiates the good politician from the bad one is that you never notice that the good one is pragmatic. A good politician is as smooth as a well-aged, single malt scotch. Hillary is a bad politician. She is like that bottom shelf blended garbage the ABC sells for $12/handle.
The scotch metaphor was all about style. Substantively, the good and bad scotch are the same. They'll both get you nice and messed up. The difference is only how they feel to you as they get you drunk.
My argument was: (1) objectively speaking, Hillary has the same bundle of motivations as every politician, left and right; (2) because she has such a poor style, lots and lots and lots of people only see her personal motivations.
The basic question I was trying to answer was: "Everybody does x, y and z...so why do people pay so much attention when Hillary does x, y and z?" I figured that a Dean supporter and Hillary sympathizer like yourself would be somewhat endeared to this piece because I am actually saying that Hillary is just like every other pol.
Nixon was just plain awkward, regardless of the medium. There's an anecdote about him telling an apocalyptically bad joke about buckets of crap to Buffy Chandler in front of a bunch of high-tone Republican donors at a party the Chandlers were holding in his political honor. He wasn't much better in person than he was on TV; from what I can gather, TV might have improved him somewhat.
I think the TV-was-bad-for-Nixon notion has been oversold - a tyrant narrative problem. The Checkers speech was so powerful because it was on TV, and he managed to sell his endearingly-awkward-square image in 1968 via the Laugh In appearance. His one really bad TV moment was when that sun of Kennedy made disgusting goo of the winter of his makeup in the 1960 debates.
Now I'm wary of turning on the TV, for fear of seeing Hillary Clinton doing a "sock -it-to-ME?" routine on Blue Collar TV.
Actually, Nixon was alleged to have had his hand in a "Slush fund," but the subsequent accounting (handled by an independent accounting firm), as detailed in the "Checkers speech," proved that he was clean. What made the broadcast so politically brilliant was that Nixon not only invited scrutiny of his financing, but slyly suggested that in doing so, all the other candidates - including Eisenhower - should do the same. And it worked.
There was a great article about the whole event, titled "Nixon's Dog," in the August 1969 issue of Esquire. Too bad it's not on line. Highly recommended; especially to anyone who would even imagine that Nixon was in the same category as Hillary regarding political style.
Michael
...The broader issue here is not whether somebody is awkward in their style or what. The issue is whether the style works toward trust. Nixon is 2005 is colored by Watergate, but I think you are on to something here. He could sell his "endearingly-awkward-square" imagine. In other words, Nixon seemed trustworthy to enough of the voters.
That is the key difference.
Nixon was seen as overtly political, but the yardstick proposed in this post is not the only measurement. A key issue is that usually an overly overt politition loses the support of his base because they no longer trust him to be loyal to their priciples, and he loses the swing voters because they think his moderation is a sham.
Both Nixon and Hillary (and Bill Clinton) benefit from the fact that they are so overtly political, and yet have such a reputation for idealogical positions, that their respective bases accept their "move to the middle" as an obvious falsehood, and instead of feeling betrayed, they feel that they are part of the deception, duping the swing voters into supporting their man.
The main difficulty such polititions have are winning over the middle swing voters. Both Nixon and Bill Clinton succeeded under unusual conditions.
Nixon: An unpopular war- with a wartime President (Johnson) packing it in, combined with Nixon's reputation for toughness made him the perfect fit. Americans wanted Peace with Honor, and realized that some very unpleasent things would have to be done, (including intensifying the war), so they voted for the meanest toughest junkyard dog of a politition they could get their hands on: Nixon and his "secret plan". I do not believe Nixon could have won without the mismanagment of Vietnam by Johnson.
Bill Clinton: Perot- does anything else need to be said? I guess his great speaking skills also helped a little, (although I always hate his speeches, even in '92, it's was always obvious BS). His re-election was due to the prestige benefits of incumbancy and the less then stellar preformance by his opponent. (No offense to Dole, I like him, but dream presidental canadiate he wasn't).
Unless there is some meltdown in the nation that benefits the Democrats, I don't think Hillary will win the general election.
I would think that an individuals personal beliefs would falls somewhere behind the duty to represent their constituents. Am I wrong ?
Personal beliefs do enter into congressional vote choice, as an empirical matter (see that Kingdon book I referenced). It depends on (A) how strong the congressman's opinion is on the matter and (B) how strong the constituency's opinion is on the matter. Generally, if a constituency wants A and a member wants B -- and A and B are exclusive -- the member will vote for B if he thinks not doing so will hurt his chance for reelection.
As a theoretical matter, or better said an ethical matter, there are two schools of thought about representative democracy. Should members be delegates -- i.e. just reflect the median policy position of their district, as you imply -- or should they be "trustees" -- i.e. have the constituency's best interests at heart and be willing to vote for something the constituents oppose because the congressman realizes it is in their best intrests (though the constituents do not themselves realize it).
The problem with either attitude, in my judgment, is that it assumes way too much about the average constituency. On most matters, they are just too ill-informed and/or do not have a cogent opinion anyway. Practically speaking, at the end of the day, members can vote their own opinions on an overwhelming majority of bills, even controversial bills. A good example is this bankruptcy bill that just passed the House: no congressional constituency is so well informed that they gave the members a cue on how to vote. Members received cues from party, trusted congressmen, the active minority in their district, and their own policy position.
Perhaps it would help, if you gave those of us who were not impressed with your column, some examples of "good" or "skilled" politicans in today's time.
For example, perhaps you think that Cong. X or Sen. Y is a helpful contrast to Sen. Clinton.
How about that?
I am sorry I did not impress you. I hope you meant that in the Humean sense of the word, though unfortunately I doubt that you did.
Anyway, I mentioned three good ones in my column: Clinton, Reagan, Dubya.
If you are interested in more, I can supply. I'll put forth a few that underscore exactly what I mean in my discussion of style. The critical point is that it is designed to engender trust among the constituency. (Specifically, the minimal winning voting coalition constituency -- not everybody, just the people you need to win and win if you get). Dick Cheney comes to mind as a good one. So does Nancy Pelosi. John Edwards always struck me as a bad politician. I think Gerald Ford was a good politician, too. Jimmy Carter was good until he got into the White House.
John Kennedy was the greatest of the 20th century. His style was so effective people are still enamored by it, 40 years after his death.
Earlier in the discussion thread, we were talking about Nixon, and i think the consensus was that he was a pretty good politician in terms of style, bad television appearances aside.
As for more contemporary people, I think Rick Santorum is really good. I am very impressed with George Allen. Dennis Haster is a good one. Specter, whom I mention is the piece, is great insofar as I have never seen a guy vote against his consituency's views so often and get away with it.
This is not to say that these guys do not make political mistakes or anything like that. Obviously, they do. It is to say that Hillary is just as political as these fellers -- or, perhaps better put, these fellers are just as political as Hillary. They are just more subtle and thus fly under the radar, which is exactly the objective. Santorum is a good example. He is like a patron saint in some conservative quarters. Yet there is no substantive difference, qua politician, between Hillary and him.
OK. I guess I can agree, on some level, that getting elected POTUS twice would, almost by definition, classify a politician as skilled. So, I can live with your naming Reagan, Clinton, and GWB as "skilled," for now.
'Course, any major league baseball player in Cooperstown was probably a pretty good ball player, too. Getting to Cooperstown sort of validates that point-of-view. Getting elected POTUS twice does much to establish someone as a skillful politician.
Why did you believe that Cheney has meet this test? To what can you point, other than GWB selecting him as VP, when you conclude that he's amongst the most skillful politican of his time? To my eyes, he persuaded one person, albeit an important one, and has gone on from there. Was Cheney getting elected to the House from Wyoming, as a GOPer, of all places skillful? Was it his previous presidential campaign the basis of this claim?
Likewise, how does Denny Hastert meet your test?
How about some rationale for Jimmy Carter pre-White House and Jerry Ford?
In the case of Carter, Ford, and Hastert, it seems to me that the common thread amongst the three of them was/is: Accidents of History. No one would suggest the key to success in politics lays in following their footsteps.
I disagree with you about former US Sen. John Edwards. But, what's your rationale there?
I'll wait and see about your comments on Sen. Santorum. To date, he's done well. No doubt. Next November may well be the acid test. If he prevails, I'll agree with your classification. If not, we'll have to work our way through a debate on that one, too.
Finally, I'm no HRC fan, AT ALL. But, I think that she's very formidable, and that she is being vastly under-rated by many, including you.
I believe that she should be taken quite seriously, and that efforts to denigrate her viability help serve her goals (sort of how GWB has frequently benefitted from low expectations) much more than some realize.
At the end of the day, GWB won twice. But in both races, a one state switch would have altered the outcome, not to say history. It's not difficult to imagine the reverse happening in 2008, with HRC as the Democratic nominee.
I have to say that SirYapAlot is my favorite RS nick so far. Many thanks for a good laugh.
Cheers -
...that your disagreement is actually with Fenno, rather than my application of Fenno to the case of Hillary. The whole thrust of Fenno's analysis is that good style helps engender trust in a constituency, the idea that "my Congressman is one of us!" This is why I referenced people like Cheney. This is why I disparaged Edwards -- he had an effect wherein people were kind of on to him.
You are, of course, free to disagree with Fenno. I just want to make it clear where the disagreement is.
I will add four points:
(1) I did say that good style is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for victory. Your disagreements with me do not seem to be mindful of that important qualification I made early on in the piece. For instance, your comment about say that getting elected twice validates one as a skillful politician might be your opinion, but I want to make it clear that this is not my opinion.
(2) You are dead wrong about Carter being an "accident of history." I could not disagree with you more. Check out Larry Bartel's Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Carter was the first politician to figure out how to "game" the primary system (which, by that point, had only been in effect for four years). He also had a fantastic style (in Fenno's use of the word) during that campaign. I cannot convey how much respect I have for that '76 Carter/Mondale campaign (I am surprised you do not; surely you recognize how difficult it is to unseat an incumbent).
I also think you are selling both Ford and Hastert way, way, way short, but will not go into details.
And, anyway, I do not much like the phrase "accident of history." Everything is, after all, an accident of history. My writing this column is an accident of history. I had Scarlet Fever when I was 9. If it were not for the accident of pennicilin, I would likely be dead. I am not saying this to go against your broader point; I am just saying that what is needed is more specificity in language because I am not sure what your broader point is.
What I think you might mean is that Carter, Hastert and Ford were not sufficient conditions for their respective successes (logically speaking, Carter would have to be a necessary condition for Carter's success). I think that is too strong a way to put it. Given the environmental context of 1976 (which of course was my previous point about the problem with your phrasing -- the atheist could argue that human existence itself is a historical accident), I would say that Carter was a sufficient condition for his electoral success. It was his reading of the public mood and his understanding of the new polical landscape embodied by the primary and his style that led him to the presidency.
(3) I have had several people mention the "if just one state flipped" argument in relation to Dubya. Of course, when you say "one state" in 2004, you really mean Ohio, right?
I am willing to go along with that to a certain degree with the 2000 election, but in the 2004 election, that boils down to a word game. It is like saying here to the next star is only about 1 1/3 parsecs away. Not that far! Well, of course not, until you realize that a parsec is 3.2 light years. Ditto for this state idea. "Ohio could have gone the other way. It's just one state!" In theory, yes, but we are talking about 150,000 net votes. First and foremost, 150,000 people do not randomly change their vote all in one direction. That just would never, ever happen. To get 150,000 people to change, you need to work them over, which is exactly what the campaign was about.
That is an incredible amount of people to sway. It is like getting half of the city of Pittsburgh to change their mind about an election. It would cost tens of millions of dollars and takes months of labor-intensive work. And the money and the work would all have to be "net," because you can be sure that the other side would do the same.
In an election that saw over 100 million people participate, 150,000 is not that many. However, that is the wrong way to look at it if we are talking about randomness or a minimal amount of net effort on Kerry's behalf. I would cede that for, say, 537 votes. But not 150,000. There is something deep, systemic, and indicative of Dubya's larger victory in those 150,000 votes.
(4) I, of course, am open to the idea that I am wrong about Hillary (though I must admit I am a tad disheartened by the number of respondents who have implied that I am obviously wrong). This is why I set up a comments section for the original column. However, I am not open to the idea that average "plebs" like myself can affect her chances by indicating that they are slim. I wish I had that much power (actually, I do not wish that and am very glad I do not have that much power -- for I fear I would be a cruel and capricious dictator), but the fact of the matter is that, on an individual level, commenting on politics has about as much affect on politics as commenting on rocks has on rocks, which is to say none.
(This is one of the reasons you usually see young people contributing to campaigns. Sooner or later, people grow up and come face to face with Olson's collective action dilemma and say to themselves, "Well, I'll be! My grandmother was wrong! One person can't make a difference!")
This actually relates to the previous point. Bush benefitted, as you said, from low expectations -- which is to say that hundreds of thousands (likely millions) of left-leaning people did not think much of him. I'm just one little dude (who, by the way, isn't even that tall) -- and even if I happen to convince everybody who reads this column, which is obviously not the case, it does not amount to a drop in the ocean.
My take on it is: that I will have no affect on anybody; that this column represents an incredibly small minority opinion; that the expectations people have of Hillary, which are high on the left, will remain unchanged because of it; and thus ultimately damage her as she underperforms in the early stages of the primary.
I say this as an exhortation to you. Do not be disheartened by me. If I am dead wrong, it really, truly, honestly does not matter.
that since her election, she has worked incredibly hard for the state of New York and earned kudos from both sides of the aisle for her efforts. By all accounts, she has been an excellent Senator, with a real record of bipartisan working relationships.
So, the theory that shes an unskilled hack - which might have been a reasonable theory when shefirst ran for Senate - is no longer supported by the evidence since.