In this diary, I bust some myths that have been circulating around here:
1. “The Democrats have moved to the right since Reagan. Now, they are more conservative than Reagan/Nixon/Goldwater/etc”People have been complaining about the Democratic Party’s lack of “ideological purity” since long before Reagan. Jimmy Carter campaigned and governed as a moderate, and was primaried from the left by Ted Kennedy in 1980. In 1960, liberals opposed John F. Kennedy, and hoped to nominate Adlai Stevenson or Hubert Humphrey instead. Even FDR faced opposition from the left: in 1936, Huey Long argued that the New Deal didn’t go far enough and railed against his failure to “break up the size of the big fortunes.”
So how can we tell if the Democratic party of the “good old days” was really more liberal than it is today? DW-NOMINATE data is widely accepted as the best objective measure of ideology by political scientists. It allows one to compare the ideology of Senators and Congressmen serving at different times via the voting records of long-serving members. The data indicates that Democrats have moved to the left, not to the right, since Reagan: voteview.com/...
This isn’t definitive proof, because individual Congressmen and Senators could have moved to the right throughout their careers. To see whether this is plausible, let’s look at some examples. DW-NOMINATE scores provide a score between -1 and 1 for each member, with -1 being the most liberal and 1 being the most conservative. If a member’s score increases over time, it means that they have become more conservative relative to the center.
Carl Levin’s score between 1979-1980 was -.345, and was the 9th most liberal Senator in his last two years in Congress (2013-2014), with a score of -.354. So he became slightly more liberal relative to the center, as did the Democratic party as a whole. So, did Senator Levin become more conservative? Ted Kennedy’s score between 1978 and 1980 was -.425, and his score in his final term was -.385. Did he move significantly to the right, or did the center of the Democratic party move to the left?Under the very reasonable assumption that Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, and others had consistent ideologies throughout their careers, the data supports the hypothesis that the Democratic party has moved to the left since 1980, not the right. For comparison, the scores of Senators Clinton, Levin, and Kennedy between 2006 and 2008 were -.414, -.357, and -.385, respectively, so if you think Hillary Clinton is right-wing, so is Ted Kennedy…
2. “Hillary Clinton is a right-winger” and “She would have been considered a moderate Republican in (insert date here)” DW-NOMINATE scores of Senators in office since 2000.Hillary Clinton is liberal. She has been consistently liberal dating back to at least 1972 when she went undercover to investigate segregation academies. In the Senate, she had a more liberal voting record than 70% of her fellow Democrats:
Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.
Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.
Sometimes I wonder whether people are confusing Clinton with her husband. Bill Clinton’s statements have been far more moderate. He has also had a more moderate donor base, according to Adam Bonica’sfundraising scores. —
That the voteview data is the same as the DW-NOMINATE data mentioned in the previous section. It indicates that not only is Hillary Clinton to the left of the average Democrat today, but that she is also liberal compared to the Democrats of previous years. In an earlier diary, I used it to show that Hillary Clinton would arguably be the most liberal president since at least 1960 (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter — there is no good objective way to compare their ideologies).
The ideology of presidential candidates plotted against the electoral votes they received. 3. “Hillary Clinton is a Neoliberal”This essentially comes down to the definition of a ‘neoliberal.’ There are many proposed definitions, but it is often used as a pejorative. Let’s examine a few definitions of the term, and see if Secretary Clinton meets them:
Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of tradeand capital. — www.britannica.com/...
This seems like a good definition to me. By this, Hillary Clinton is no neoliberal — she opposes laissez-faire economics, and she supports more than “minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs.”
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
DEREGULATION.
PRIVATIZATION.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" -www.corpwatch.org/...
This is another reasonable definition, one for which Clinton is clearly not a neoliberal. Clinton opposes cutting public expenditures for social services, deregulation, and privatization. She has been a strong champion of the concepts of “public good” and “community” throughout her career.
A liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods -www.merriam-webster.com/...
OK, Hillary Clinton meets this definition, but I don’t think it accurately reflects what people around here call neoliberalism. I think pragmatism is a virtue in a president, not a vice.