OPINION:
Hillary Clinton knows better than anyone the economy’s weakness and its political danger. The reason George H.W. Bush lost a close race to a political outsider with glaring liabilities 24 years ago was public perception that the economy was weak. Uncannily parallel, today’s race has the same three prominent factors — the economy, foreign policy and a populist insurgency — that decided 1992’s. Only this time they could defeat a Clinton, rather than elect one.
In 1992, little-known challenger Bill Clinton set his sights on President Bush, who had constructed an unassailable multination diplomatic alliance, and then executed one of the most stunning and rapid military victories in American history. Aided by Ross Perot’s populist insurgency, Mr. Clinton succeeded by targeting what he perceived to be Mr. Bush’s Achilles heel: economic underperformance.
The economy shrank by a scant 0.1 percent in 1991, but was already recovering the next year and would ultimately achieve 3.6 percent real growth. No matter. Bill Clinton’s internal campaign mantra was “It’s the economy, Stupid.” Not only did it undo Mr. Bush’s incredible foreign policy achievements, it covered a host of Mr. Clinton’s political shortcomings.
While Mr. Clinton’s post-presidency approval ratings are high, it is easy to forget his candidacy’s substantial weaknesses.
Despite Mr. Bush’s foreign policy strength, Mr. Clinton faced him without foreign policy experience himself. Mr. Clinton was also initially seen as just a flawed regional candidate — another Jimmy Carter — with direct accusations of womanizing and conflicts of interest arising from Hillary’s law practice.
The economy did not just level the playing field for Mr. Clinton, it also helped fuel Mr. Perot’s populist pitch in which “money issues” — the federal deficit and trade — were central.
None of this is now lost on Hillary, who saw it play out firsthand. She should also recognize today’s striking parallels and her own precarious position.
It is no accident that Mrs. Clinton’s recent trenchant attack on Donald Trump centered on foreign policy. Most coverage focused on her explicitly questioning his temperament for leading America’s foreign and military policy, while reminding all of her own experience — pointedly referring to the decision to take Osama bin Laden.
However, it implicitly sought to do more: insulate Hillary from President Obama’s economy. Just a day later, May’s disappointing 38,000 job gain became just the latest reason why Mrs. Clinton wants to be a world away from Mr. Obama’s economic record.
While posturing as though in a strong position, Hillary knows she is in a weak one — far more so than Mr. Bush was in 1992.
First, Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy record is much weaker than the elder Mr. Bush’s. Mr. Bush had been U.N. ambassador, the U.S. top representative to China, director of the CIA, and vice president — all before orchestrating Kuwait’s liberation as president.
Still, it was not enough. How much less potent, then, will be Hillary’s far less-effective foreign policy work as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state — heading arguably this administration’s weakest area?
Second, Mr. Obama’s economic record is far weaker than Mr. Bush’s. Over Mr. Bush’s four-year term, real annual gross domestic product growth averaged 2.3 percent. Mr. Obama’s seven-year average is one-third lower, a mere 1.4 percent. The one positive Mr. Obama seeks to highlight is low unemployment. However, that is a hollow statistic due to America’s historically low labor force participation — an extraordinarily high number of Americans have stopped looking for work.
Finally, as a result of Mr. Obama’s weak economic record, today’s populist insurgencies — channeled by Mr. Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders and on the left — is far more powerful than Mr. Perot’s in 1992. His impact came as a third party candidate, who siphoned away 19 percent of the popular vote — enough to elect Bill Clinton.
Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump have been far more than simple spoilers. Mr. Trump has won the Republican nomination outright and, had there not been super delegates, Mr. Sanders might well have won his. Unlike Mr. Bush, Hillary faces a stronger populist challenge on her right — and must still fear its effect on her left.
The economy, foreign policy and populism, the three factors that dominated the 1992 race, are equally present in this one. A quarter-century ago, they came together to produce Bill Clinton’s improbable election. Simultaneously, they set in motion a train of events that now brings Hillary to the presidency’s threshold.
While Mr. Clinton exploited the weak economy in 1992, Hillary Clinton must avoid the blame for the current one. While Mr. Bush failed to use a strong foreign policy record to parry the weak economy, Mrs. Clinton seeks to use a far weaker foreign policy record to defend herself. Finally, she must deal with a far stronger populist insurgency — on two fronts — than the one Mr. Bush failed to successfully address in 1992.
It would be the height of political irony if the three factors that elected Bill Clinton in 1992 — and started Hillary Clinton on her own circuitous presidential path — served to end the Clinton dynasty this year.
• J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget and as a congressional staff member.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.