"What if Clinton had done welfare reform first?" If Marvel ever expanded the "What If" series into politics, this would be among the first issues. You hear it occasionally in political circles, and as I understand it, Clinton himself has voiced support for theory. (I've always wondered about another counterfactual: What would have happened had he tried health care reform before NAFTA?) Ryan Lizza brings it up today in context of Obama. "Many Democrats have argued in hindsight that perhaps they could have prevented the 1994 Republican landslide if Clinton had picked welfare reform instead," he says. He goes on to argue that perhaps Obama should pick a consensus issue after stimulus, but can't think of a portion of Obama's agenda "where ideological differences are muted."I'd suggest that this isn't a function of bipartisan issues but of political power. Welfare reform was bipartisan because Republicans controlled Congress, but didn't have a veto-proof majority. By definition, anything that got done had to be bipartisan. But imagine the full counterfactual here: Back in 1993, Clinton tries the version of welfare reform he passed in 1996 with a Democratic Congress. Does he keep Congress? Does health care reform go forward? My hunch is that welfare reform simply never happens. It would have failed and he would likely have faced a primary challenge. Welfare reform caused a revolt among the traditional left when it came before Congress in 1996. In the House, 98 Democrats voted against it. 97 voted for it. In the Senate, 25 voted for it, while 21 voted against it. Those were close margins. And they were close margins for a popular bill being pushed after Democrats had endured a historic rejection in 1994 and amidst a presidential election where, if Clinton lost, Republicans would have undivided control of the government. So I'd submit that welfare reform, as we understand it, simply wouldn't have passed a healthy Democratic Congress. And if it had -- if Clinton had followed up NAFTA by cutting a deal with the Republicans to pass their version of welfare reform -- the fury would have been so great that he would have faced a strong primary challenge in 1996.Now, you could say that welfare reform would have looked very different had it been a straight Democratic bill passed by a Democratic Congress and thus built by Democratic legislators such that it didn't enrage Democratic interest groups. I'd agree with you. But it probably would have looked so different that it wouldn't actually be seen as a bipartisan accomplishment and so the theoretical advantage of passing welfare reform before health care -- more bipartisan credibility -- wouldn't have manifested. To connect it to Obama's current situation, it's not that the issues aren't there, but that the incentives aren't there. If Obama was facing a Republican Congress, he'd have a lot of bipartisan initatives. But without that Congress, Republicans don't have the incentive to give him -- and congressional Democrats -- accomplishments, and he doesn't have the incentives to push bills that are so forthrightly conservative that minority Republicans can view them as Republican accomplishments. SHOULD CLINTON HAVE DONE WELFARE REFORM FIRST?
"What if Clinton had done welfare reform first?" If Marvel ever expanded the "What If" series into politics, this would be among the first issues. You hear it occasionally in political circles, and as I understand it, Clinton himself has voiced support for theory. (I've always wondered about another counterfactual: What would have happened had he tried health care reform before NAFTA?) Ryan Lizza brings it up today in context of Obama. "Many Democrats have argued in hindsight that perhaps they could have prevented the 1994 Republican landslide if Clinton had picked welfare reform instead," he says. He goes on to argue that perhaps Obama should pick a consensus issue after stimulus, but can't think of a portion of Obama's agenda "where ideological differences are muted."I'd suggest that this isn't a function of bipartisan issues but of political power. Welfare reform was bipartisan because Republicans controlled Congress, but didn't have a veto-proof majority. By definition, anything that got done had to be bipartisan. But imagine the full counterfactual here: Back in 1993, Clinton tries the version of welfare reform he passed in 1996 with a Democratic Congress. Does he keep Congress? Does health care reform go forward? My hunch is that welfare reform simply never happens. It would have failed and he would likely have faced a primary challenge. Welfare reform caused a revolt among the traditional left when it came before Congress in 1996. In the House, 98 Democrats voted against it. 97 voted for it. In the Senate, 25 voted for it, while 21 voted against it. Those were close margins. And they were close margins for a popular bill being pushed after Democrats had endured a historic rejection in 1994 and amidst a presidential election where, if Clinton lost, Republicans would have undivided control of the government. So I'd submit that welfare reform, as we understand it, simply wouldn't have passed a healthy Democratic Congress. And if it had -- if Clinton had followed up NAFTA by cutting a deal with the Republicans to pass their version of welfare reform -- the fury would have been so great that he would have faced a strong primary challenge in 1996.Now, you could say that welfare reform would have looked very different had it been a straight Democratic bill passed by a Democratic Congress and thus built by Democratic legislators such that it didn't enrage Democratic interest groups. I'd agree with you. But it probably would have looked so different that it wouldn't actually be seen as a bipartisan accomplishment and so the theoretical advantage of passing welfare reform before health care -- more bipartisan credibility -- wouldn't have manifested. To connect it to Obama's current situation, it's not that the issues aren't there, but that the incentives aren't there. If Obama was facing a Republican Congress, he'd have a lot of bipartisan initatives. But without that Congress, Republicans don't have the incentive to give him -- and congressional Democrats -- accomplishments, and he doesn't have the incentives to push bills that are so forthrightly conservative that minority Republicans can view them as Republican accomplishments. 
