The case for Hillary?

A long read on Hillary Clinton has been capturing quite a bit of attention. In it, Zachary Leven makes a perfectly sound case that a number of the attacks on Hillary Clinton are ill-considered. She is a progressive candidate and has a pragmatic, electable platform. Leven is right on both counts. And so, electability pragmatists have responded to the piece enthusiastically.

However, there are still issues with the Clinton candidacy – not the usual personal attacks which I’ll put to one side but weaknesses that go to the heart of the future direction of progressive strategy more widely. These weaknesses mean that, should she face a decent Republican candidate she may well face some considerable difficulty. The left (and right for that matter) in the US as well as Europe is structurally divided between populism and pragmatism. All that unite them are a loose set of values, some history, and mutual disdain. Some broad brush populist rhetoric from pragmatic candidates won’t do the trick.

It is worth looking at some substance rather than just political chatter and polling analysis. Last July, Clinton gave a speech that outlined her political economy. It was perfectly fine. Within it, there were the things you’d expect from a progressive candidate. There was some regulatory action on Wall Street, some loopholes for business and the wealthy to be closed, action to help people into work, to encourage training, support for childcare, increases to the minimum wage, some sharing of corporate equity, investment in science, infrastructure and education and action on racial and gender equality.

What’s wrong with all that? Nothing at all. It’s a perfectly sound package of measures. There’s very little to be disagreed with. The problem though is that it feels like pretty much the same type of package that Bill Clinton would have advocated twenty years ago. The progressive offer has remained pretty much the same, with some modification, for nearing a third of a century. Yet, the analysis has changed of how power, wealth and opportunity is distributed in a world where power is shifting, financial risks pervade, and technological change appears to be gathering some pace (or at least is likely to). That is why to many on the left, and not just the usual suspects, the traditional progressive offer seems insufficient. And the fear of many is that if you start with limited as opposed to big goals, compromise will then erode even these in the blink of a Congress-White House stand off.

Challenges to progressive orthodoxy have become more rather than less acute since 2008. The legitimacy of pragmatic progressives rests on their ability to win elections but there is now a large part of the constituency is saying ‘but that’s not enough’. ‘You’re wrong, yes it is’ comes the response. Hence the mutual disdain referenced earlier.

It doesn’t seem at all likely that Sanders will win the Democratic nomination. Comparisons with Jeremy Corbyn work at a very superficial level. But he’s far more interesting than that. Corbyn managed to mobilise a very narrow segment of the electorate in Labour’s bubble leadership election. Sanders has far wider appeal and is more sophisticated than Corbyn in every way.

His policy agenda feels bigger in meeting the challenges that both Clinton and he agree upon – inequality, concentration of wealth and poverty, financial corruption and risk, and the slow death of middle America. The political coalition needed to bring the big institutional changes he proposes is beyond the possibility of current America. So the choice ends up being between a big strategic package which is unobtainable and a micro-package that feels competent but inadequate to the task that the progressive left has set itself.

On a personal level, I would go for the package that has wider appeal over the one that has narrow, intense appeal. It would be a choice made with a nagging sense of disappointment. Many will decide to back Sanders then duck out once he has lost. There is likely to be an enthusiasm gap for a Clinton candidacy. And guilt-tripping people into supporting Clinton will be counter-productive.

So what would be the package that could sit between Clinton and Sanders? Any progressive model of change that relies heavily on the Federal Government and the White House is doomed to failure. All the things that Clinton supports at a Federal level should be done: especially action on minimum wages, investment in science and an infrastructure investment bank. There should also be far more determined regulation of Wall Street.

Then a very different approach to political and policy innovation is needed. The progressive leaps of the future are more likely to occur in states, cities and communities (devolved nations, cities/counties and communities in the UK). So national strategy should be more about supporting civic innovation. Those places that demonstrate energy in creating better institutions should be supported in their determination to support social justice: better childcare, innovation in education and skills systems, Basic Income style policies and pilots, new forms of community ownership and democracy, innovative local financial mechanisms, living wages, and investment in new distributed energy systems to name a few. These interventions would be the core strategy not just add-ons (yes, some of this is supported. currently but largely as an after-thought).

This approach constitutes a better progressive model of change than either Sanders or Clinton currently offer. The future progressive strategy is a movement of civic innovation. In the US, this would mean the Democrats being the party of federalism rather than the Federal Government. In the UK, Labour would be the party of place and people rather than bureaucratic centralism.

The progressive left is in crisis. It is in crisis across the US and Europe. It lacks a method to achieve its goals. So it lurches between the ultra pragmatic and the bold but unrealistic. It’s unrealistic to see this becoming resolved in 2016. The case for Hillary is strongest currently. But it’s not a case without substantial weakness and potential pitfalls. Electability is necessary but far from sufficient.

NB I have deliberately put foreign policy to one side – that’s for another day.