Clinton's Economic Line Isn't New
Posted by JUSTIN MILLER | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author
Hillary Clinton's line yesterday that it's "time to reject the idea of an 'on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity," a "we're all in it together"' society isn't new. In fact, it may not even be hers.
A year ago Howard Fineman had dinner with Bill Clinton's campaign strategist James Carville, who "doesn't speak for the Clintons, but he speaks to the Clintons." During their chat, Carville previewed two messages that have since become part of Hillary Clinton's campaign rhetoric.
First, sacrifice for the common good:
"Every man for himself" is the last order of a weak, failed commander. "All hands on deck" is the order of a successful commander. What we need is what I call "progressive patriotism." Everybody pitches in, all hands on deck, not for the idea of "sacrifice," but for survival. Why do you get to drive that SUV all the time with no consequences? Well, you don't. And what if we raise the Social Security retirement age by a few more months -- and faster? Isn't that worth it to save the system?"
Clinton hasn't talked about raising the retirement age but did call for higher taxes and requiring oil companies to invest in alternative energy.
Second, Carville talked populism:
A lot of people in the party think we ought to take a more populist line. Look at the giant checks the oil company executives get; then look at what's happening to average workers.
Clinton did exactly that, saying that the economy is growing, but mostly for corporations, not the households -- "trickle-down economics, but without the trickle," she called it.

