Paul Waldman

Paul Waldman is a weekly columnist and senior writer for The American Prospect. He also writes for the Plum Line blog at The Washington Post and The Week and is the author of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.

Recent Articles

Why Republicans Won't Convince the Electorate That Hillary Clinton Is a Radical

One of the persistent conservative narratives about Hillary Clinton is that her identity as a supposedly moderate Democrat is a ruse, meant to conceal her radical leftist intents. If and when she reaches her long-held goal of becoming president, the mask will be removed and the true horror of her socialist scheme will be revealed.

That is, of course, assuming we reach January 2017 with Barack Obama having failed in his own plan to turn America into a dungeon of Stalinist oppression and misery. But the idea that Clinton is, like her husband, a moderate Democrat, is something that many conservatives have trouble abiding, particularly when the prospect of her becoming president becomes more salient.

So lest Republicans become complacent about the prospects for a second Clinton presidency (a real danger, no doubt), Liz Mair argues in the Daily Beast that Republicans shouldn't fool themselves into thinking that the former secretary of state is much like the first President Clinton:

...tying Hillary Clinton to her husband is an act of political malpractice that ignores the fact that on economic issues, she was—during his presidency, during her 2008 campaign, and still today—significantly to the left of him.

For whatever else one may say about him, Bill Clinton was and is a centrist. His presidency is remembered for the taming of the deficit, his advocacy for free trade, his signature of welfare reform, his legislation cutting the long-term capital gains tax rate, and perhaps most famously, his declaration that "the era of big government is over."

That would not have been true if Hillary had had it her way. And if she has her way now—and if she makes it to the White House—a very un-Bill-like big government will remain in the cards for some time.

Even if her bill of particulars is pretty weak, Mair is right insofar as Hillary Clinton is running in 2016 and Bill Clinton left office in 2001. In the time since, the Democratic Party has itself moved to the left in some ways, and a party's nominee is always going to reflect the party's consensus (with some small variation). If Bill Clinton were running now, he wouldn't be the same candidate he was then. It isn't that Hillary has been waiting for two decades to let her socialist freak flag fly, as I'm sure many conservatives believe; it's that her party has evolved, and she's evolved along with it. For instance, to be a Democrat now means to believe in full marriage equality and to question the War on Drugs, which wasn't true in 1992. At that time there was a comprehensive debate about the party's ideological direction, which Bill Clinton led; now there's a remarkable degree of ideological unity.

There are still ways in which Hillary Clinton is to the right of the median Democrat; she certainly retains more hawkish instincts in foreign affairs, and I don't know if she has abandoned her previous support of the death penalty (though that's something presidents don't do anything about). However you might judge her, we sometimes forget when we try to make such an assessment that it isn't necessary for a president to be an ideological radical for him or her to be a disaster in office. Richard Nixon was something of a moderate, but that made him no less corrupt. There are ways in which George W. Bush was less than a right-wing ideologue; that mitigates the disaster he wrought at home and abroad not at all.

The real things conservatives dislike about Hillary Clinton have little to do with ideology. They think she's a power-hungry, dishonest, overly secretive conniver who has no scruples. Someone could be all those things, and believe almost anything about policy.

This is something both liberals and conservatives will argue about when it comes to the Republican candidates, too. I tend to think that the actual policy differences between those candidates are tiny, and it's the attitudinal differences that are significant. If you actually went down a list of every issue you could come up with, you'd find that Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz disagree on only a couple of things, but Cruz presents himself as a proud far-right ideologue, while Bush doesn't.

Many conservatives believe that Bush is actually some kind of liberal simply because he talks about immigrants as though they were human beings and supports Common Core (which many other Republicans used to like before they decided it's some kind of communist indoctrination program). My guess is that Bush looked closely at Mitt Romney's ham-handed attempts to convince primary voters that he was actually a doctrinaire right-winger ("I was a severely conservative Republican governor") and concluded that the best course is to not fight too strongly against the notion that he's a moderate, despite what little truth there may be to it.

In any case, this kind of ideological name-calling is a feature of nearly every presidential campaign: each candidate says, "I'm mainstream, and my opponent is a radical." Sometimes it's true and sometimes it isn't, but I suspect Republicans are going to have a hard time convincing the electorate that Hillary Clinton is an ideological extremist, whatever they tell themselves.

Photo of the Day, Their Elections Are As Dumb As Ours Edition

That's prime minister David Cameron, campaigning ahead of the May 7 elections in Great Britain. You see, the little lamb represents the hopes and dreams of every Briton, to whom Cameron's Conservative Party will gently feed the nourishing milk of prudent fiscal and monetary policy, so it can grow up big and strong before it is stripped naked for its wool and then butchered into pieces to feed hungry...well, something like that anyway. The point is, look at our guy feeding a cute widdle wamb!

Rand Paul—and Every Other Candidate—to Run Against Washington

You know what America needs? A candidate who will change the way they do business in Washington, bring an outsider's perspective, stand up to all those politicians, and make Washington work for America and not the other way around! I know we need that, because that's what Barack Obama told us we needed before he got elected. So did George W. Bush. So did Bill Clinton. And so does pretty much everybody running for any federal office. Why do we hear this over and over again? Mostly because it's what Americans want to hear. After all, in many ways Washington really is a cesspool of legalized corruption and misplaced priorities. But more importantly, because voters are dumb enough to believe that the candidate making these promises can actually carry them out in a meaningful way.

That isn't to say reform is impossible. But it's always going to be slow and incremental, and the idea that a charismatic leader will just come in and sweep away a whole system is absurd. It's particularly ridiculous when you hear some House candidate saying he wants to change the way they do business in Washington, as though some freshman congressman is going to have a meaningful impact on the way the entire federal government and all the businesses and pressure groups that surround it operate.

But apparently this message still polls well, and Rand Paul is about to announce his outsider presidential campaign to bring change to Washington, under the slogan, "Defeat the Washington machine. Unleash the American dream." And what is his bold and innovative program? "Advisers say Paul's top issues will include a flat tax, IRS reform, term limits, privacy and justice reform." Ooo, a flat tax! You don't say. Let's take a look at Paul's inspiring video:

"Send the career politicians packing!" says the U.S. senator who won his seat almost solely on the basis of being the son of a man who spent 23 years in Congress.

Paul's essential problem is that he's built his political brand on being, as his video says, "a different kind of Republican," yet Republican primary voters don't really want a different kind of Republican. Karen Tumulty and Robert Costa of the Washington Post explore that dilemma in today's paper, noting that as the presidential race approaches Paul has changed some of his more libertarian views to line up with Republican orthodoxy. I wrote that story last August, as it happens. Paul can be the candidate of his father's libertarian acolytes, in which case he'll stick around but won't win the nomination. Or he can be a more traditional Republican, in which case there's nothing much to distinguish him and he probably won't win the nomination.

Perhaps he thinks that a broad anti-Washington message is the way to bring the libertarian and traditional conservative strands together into an appealing synthesis. It might be—if all the other candidates weren't going to be saying exactly the same thing.

In 2016, Money Will Matter More Than Ever, Yet Not At All

Money in politics is a problem, but it goes way beyond this or that donor or election. 

Flickr/Tracy O
Flickr/Tracy O T here will be more money spent on the 2016 presidential election than any before in human history. OK, we don't know that with absolute certainty, but let's just say it would shocking if it didn't turn out to be true. The Koch brothers alone have promised to raise and spend the awfully specific amount of $889 million on the election, and that's before we even get to the candidates, the parties, and all the other millionaires and billionaires eager to demonstrate their public-spiritedness by pouring buckets of cash on their preferred candidates. Is it horrifying? Absolutely. But this could well be a campaign in which there's so much money sloshing around that money makes almost no difference in the end. Just to be clear, in no way am I defending the American campaign finance system, which ought to be an enduring source of national shame. And I'm not talking about all the down-ballot races, where an injection of outside money can determine the results. I'm sure not...

In 2016, Money Will Matter More Than Ever, Yet Not At All

Flickr/Tracy O

There will be more money spent on the 2016 presidential election than any before in human history. OK, we don't know that with absolute certainty, but let's just say it would shocking if it didn't turn out to be true. The Koch brothers alone have promised to raise and spend the awfully specific amount of $889 million on the election, and that's before we even get to the candidates, the parties, and all the other millionaires and billionaires eager to demonstrate their public-spiritedness by pouring buckets of cash on their preferred candidates. Is it horrifying? Absolutely. But this could well be a campaign in which there's so much money sloshing around that money makes almost no difference in the end.

Just to be clear, in no way am I defending the American campaign finance system, which ought to be an enduring source of national shame. And I'm not talking about all the down-ballot races, where an injection of outside money can determine the results. I'm sure not talking about the fact that we even elect judges in what are now well-funded campaigns, a practice so appalling that it is duplicated almost nowhere else in the world. But if there's any campaign in which money won't determine the outcome, it's the presidential race—precisely the one where money will pour down like a monsoon.

There are a couple of reasons. The first is that money makes its biggest impact when there's an imbalance, where one candidate can dramatically outspend the other. This is often the case in congressional races and even sometimes in Senate races, where one competitor (usually the incumbent) swamps the other and ends up being the only voice voters hear.

But that won't be the case in a presidential campaign. What matters is the relative advantage one side might have, not the absolute difference in dollars, and in any presidential race the relative advantage is going to be small. For instance, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, even though Barack Obama raised a quarter of a billion dollars more than Mitt Romney in 2012, Romney's deficit was overcome by donors to the GOP and outside groups; when you added it all up, the Red Team spent $1.2 billion and the Blue Team spent $1.1 billion. That extra $100 million Republicans spent didn't make much of a difference.

That's largely because of the second reason money won't determine the winner of the presidential race: the more people know about, hear about, and talk about the campaign, the less important campaign spending is. Chances are you'll know very little about the contenders in your state representative contest next year, so a volunteer chatting you up on your doorstep or a well-timed flyer in the mail could actually sway your vote by telling you something you hadn't heard or just giving you a warm feeling about one of the candidates. But with the presidential race the focus of so much attention, the things the campaigns and outside groups spend money on end up being a much smaller proportion of everything voters hear about the race.

So here's what will happen in the 2016 general election. The Republican candidate will raise and spend a huge amount of money. Republican superdonors will spend a huge amount of money trying to get him elected, perhaps more than he spends on his own. Hillary Clinton will also raise a huge amount of money, and Democratic superdonors will spend amply on her behalf (though not in quite the quantity as their Republican counterparts). And in the end, it will nearly even out.

That does make the likes of the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson a little less frightening. Adelson spent somewhere between $100 million and $150 million in the 2012 election, money that enriched many a Republican political consultant and local TV station, but didn't actually accomplish Adelson's goal of bringing down Barack Obama. A somewhat less sunny way to look at it is that what ultimately blunts the influence of Republican billionaires is a corporatized Democratic Party that can go to Wall Street and other centers of wealth and power to raise what's necessary to stay competitive—but let's leave that story for another day.

Even in the primaries, the billionaires don't seem to be able to get what they want, no matter how much they spend. Adelson came to wide public attention four years ago when he gave $20 million to Winning the Future, a super PAC attempting to secure the GOP nomination for Newt Gingrich. Adelson's plan failed when voters realized that Newt Gingrich was, in fact, Newt Gingrich.

Money still matters in primaries, particularly competitive ones with lots of candidates, like we're seeing on the Republican side. But the realization that lots of money is necessary but not sufficient for victory seems to have sunk in. Jeb Bush planned to blow away the rest of the field with a "shock and awe" fundraising campaign that would prove so formidable that other candidates would skitter away in terror, but in the end it didn't really scare anybody. That's not because Jeb won't raise plenty of money, or even because he won't outraise the rest of the Republican field (he probably will), but because few people are all that intimidated by a well-funded primary opponent.

The real problem with all this election spending isn't what happens during the campaign, it's what happens after. The danger isn't that the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, or any other billionaire (or collection of billionaires) is going to foist upon an unsuspecting public some unprepared or reckless president. We may get such presidents again, as we have in the past, but it won't be because America's plutocrats bought our votes. The problem is that once someone rides to victory on those waves of cash, what they do in office—whether we're talking about a president or a senator or a congressman—is almost inevitably distorted by the interests of their patrons.

Which is why those patrons do it, after all. And that's what we should worry about.

Pages