The defeat of the new Democrats in the U.S. Was it only due to Clinton?

Résumé du document

From 1932 until 1980, the New Deal public philosophy attracted an electoral coalition that had enabled the Democratic Party to dominate national politics for decades. However, since 1964, the New Deal consensus began to be challenged by some groups within each party's coalition while the rise of New Politics Coalition was dividing the Democratic Party. The defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980, as well as the loss of the Senate and of thirty-three seats in the House confirmed the doubts of some democrats about the future of their party. Therefore, in the aftermath of the 1984 presidential elections that would be the biggest victory in the US history with the reelection of Reagan, a group of Democrats emerged. They were identified with centrist social positions and neoliberal fiscal values and would be called the "New Democrats" later on and began to gain power arguing that the party had to craft a new public philosophy, called a "Third Way", that would establish a winning and defensible posture before the next elections.

Extraits

[...] They've sent a strong signal to criminals by supporting the death penalty. And they've rejected the old tax-and-spend politics”. Clinton, President of the United States: a “third to govern Clinton was finally elected President of the United States in 1992 winning 43% of the electoral vote to 37% for George H. Bush and 19% for the independent Ross Perot. Despite the huge difficulties Clinton and the New Democrats had to face, Clinton appeared to be the first Democratic candidate to be reelected to a second full term in 1996 since F. [...]

[...] Indeed, despite the scandals that marred his presidency, Clinton received high public approval before the 2000 election. However, if during the primaries Gore embraced the accomplishments of the Clinton-Gore administration, during the Democratic National Convention he attempted to dissociate himself from Clinton and his scandals proclaiming himself as his man”. For instance, in choosing Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut as his running mate, Gore had selected the first New Democrat senator to condemn Clinton's behavior. It prevented the vice president from catching the administration's performance- based popularity. [...]

[...] He also succeeded in some ways in imposing a “third to govern. On the one hand, the DLC praised Clinton's success of reinventing government developing a new Democratic approach to governance. Indeed, at the state of the Union in 1997, Clinton asserted that he succeeded in creating a third way to govern declaring: have the smallest government in thirty-five years, but a more progressive one. We have a smaller government, but a stronger nation”. Clinton also tried to welfare as we know signing a welfare reform bill, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, that diverged sharply from the Democratic notion of a lasting “safety beneath the poor requiring most welfare recipients to engage in job activities. [...]

[...] However, despite all of these achievements, Al Gore, the New Democrat candidate during the 2000 election, lost against the Republican George W. Bush. What is Clinton responsibility in this defeat? II) The “bridge to the 21st century” led to the 2000 disaster: the limited responsibility of Bill Clinton The fall of the New Democrats and the role Clinton played in DLC's disappointment and the 1994 defeat as a referendum against the first two years of the Clinton administration On the one hand, Clinton failed to implement the New Democratic agenda to form a lasting New Democratic Coalition, especially during the first two years of his administration, disappointing the DLC but also liberals and therefore rushing the defeat of the Democratic Party during the congressional elections of November Indeed, unified party control of executive and legislative branches created a situation in which, to enact legislation, Clinton administration needed to deal with the liberals. [...]

[...] Indeed, after the defeat of Dukakis, the new DLC think tank called the Progressive Policy Institute led the quest for a DLC presidential candidate. During a meeting in Little Rock in April Al From offered then Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas and member of the DLC since its early day, a deal: the DLC would help Clinton to become President of the United States if he would help the DLC cause in transforming the Democratic Party. Clinton finally accepted this offer and became DLC chairman, officially replacing Sam Nunn, in March 1990. [...]