Few presidents have fretted more about their legacy while in office than did Bill Clinton. Now, he seems determined to define that legacy by helping his wife win election to the White House. If she wins, he rationalizes, it’ll cement his role in U.S. history.
Yet, had this Democrat not focused as much on politics as he has, he may well have earned one of the best domestic policies legacies of any president in the twentieth century, a man who succeeded in reforming many of the programs his partisan predecessors had enacted.
Not just that. In his first, he signed two pieces of trade legislation the North American Free Trade (NAFTA) and the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which helped ensure the economic boom of the 1990s. Spurred on by a Republican Congress, he effected landmark welfare reform and helped balance the budget.
He might have secured his legacy as a reformer had he signed onto the recommendations of the Breaux Commission (National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare) to reform Medicare. Instead, for political purposes, he rejected the recommendations of this bipartisan commission, thus allowing the costs of that Great Society program to continue to spiral out of control, leaving it to future presidents to fix. Even as these proposals were consistent with positions he espoused through the Democratic Leadership Council and in his 1992 and 1996 campaigns.
Some say he backed away from these reforms (which his Administration had initially supported) because he feared angering liberals or because he wanted to to pay them back for standing by him during impeachment. Others say he turned away from this reform consistent because it would have deprived Al Gore of a campaign issue in 2000. And some might view a Gore victory in 2000 a vote for a third Clinton term.
Whatever the case, it’s clear that Clinton did not pursue reform as aggressively in the last two years of his tenure as he did in the middle four years for political reasons. Had he thought less of his legacy and focused more on the ideas of his successful national campaigns, he might have accomplished more and thus had a better legacy.
And now, he, more than any of his predecessors has plunged into electoral politics (on behalf of another candidate*) with a passion — and anger — unmatched by only the most zealous partisans. Should he continue, it will make that one part of his record, evident since his earliest forays into Arkansas politics, the defining aspect of his legacy, that of political attack dog, out to win at all costs.
He has attacked and misrepresented the record of Senator Barack Obama, his wife’s chief opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said Clinton’s attacks are not “presidential . . . not in keeping with the image of a former president.”
Columnist Eugene Robinson who thinks Clinton “was a good president, at times very good” finds that Democrat has become a “coldblooded political hit man:”
No, scratch the “coldblooded” part. At times, in his attempt to cut Barack Obama down to size, Bill Clinton has been red-faced with anger; his rhetoric about voter suppression and a great big “fairy tale” has been way over the top. This doesn’t look and sound like mere politics. It seems awfully personal.
That’s hardly statesmanlike.
So focused on electing his wife running on a platform far to the left of the centrist agenda which helped him win two elections, he seems to define his legacy by political success, not effective reform.
Thus, instead of building on the legacy of the compromises he helped effect together with the Republican Congress during the middle years of his tenure in the White House, Clinton seems determined to secure his legacy not only as a divisive figure in American politics, but also as a divider in his own party.
——-
*Former president Grover Cleveland, after losing in 1888, returned to active politics in campaigning for his own reelection (successfully) in 1892 while Teddy Roosevelt, in similar circumstances twenty years later, was not so successful.
As the updates for this keep growing, I’m putting them all beneath the jump.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has an editorial on a similar topic on how Senator Obama is just now learning that the Clintons will say or do anything to win election. Read the whole thing.
UP-UPDATE: Talking about the Clintons’ tactics on Special Report with Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer called the Clintons the “best street fighters around. You cross them and you get a horse’s head in your bed.” (I believe I am quoting this accurately. I was trying to type as I watched.)
UP-UP-UPDATE: Seems that this is a media theme of the day. In the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz writes, “It looks like a singular political figure has suddenly broken through and united both the left and the right in this country.” Kurtz quotes the editors of The New Republic who observe has Clinton is losing “his post-presidential luster and dignity, turning himself back into just another pol.” (Via Instapundit).
UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: I keep coming across articles and posts on the web from all sides of the political spectrum, noting how juvenile Bill’s tactics are. As per this post, Dick Morris thinks it’s a strategy designed to use Bill’s prominence to get anti-Obama soundbytes out, while his wife stays above the fray. Still, as per my post, it makes the former president look increasingly petty. Ever longtime “Friends of Bill” are expressing their concern. His former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes, “Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party.” (Via Instapundit.) Um, Bob, where you paying any attention to your friend and former boss, members of the Administrations in which you served, when they were doing this to Republicans?
UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: On Pajamas, Michael Weiss offers his thoughts and a good compendium of Clinton criticism from the blogosphere.
UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: The Economist:“But over the past few months Mr Clinton has downgraded himself from global statesman to political hatchet-man.”
“During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history.” according to http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html. Really, Bill Clinton does not need his wife to “cement his legacy”.
There is no doubt that Clinton succeeded in enacting numerous reforms as I indicated above. And his second two Treasury Secretaries (Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers) rank as among the most competent in the past fifty years, perhaps the best appointed by any Democrat since FDR. But, he would not have achieved that prosperity were it not for the efforts of the Republican Congress. And it’s arguable that our nation enjoyed more peace and economic well being in the 1990s. That’s sheer hyperbole, likely written by the Clintonfolk before his term was up.
That said, Clinton does have a solid record (for the most part) on domestic issues.
But, the point of the post is that by returning to the gutter to attack and distort the record his wife’s political rival, he cements his record as a divider above all. Which is too bad given his gifts.
Bill Clinton will walk the stage until he can no longer walk. He is a man of consuming lusts and he draws breath only to fuel his need for fame and notice. No advice from any source can still this volcano of egotism.
I am filled with wonder about how Hillary thinks she can ride this cyclone if she gains the Whitehouse. She would be like the dog catching the UPS truck.
Clinton is not unlike O’neill’s “Emperor Jones” or the Josiah Harlan character in Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King.” Perhaps Hillary could get Bill a position as the Wizard of Dubai. It would probably come closest to fitting the man’s self image.
I just read the obituary Clinton had written that is quoted by wilk.j in #1 above. He left our a few landmarks along the way: Whitewater, Travelgate, Chinagate, Lewinsky-gate, perjury in front of a grand jury and countless Clinton cronies indicted and jailed. (This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of achievements.)
A vote for Shrillary is a vote for Bill, and a vote for the worst in them both. If she doesn’t win it in the end: that will be the reason.
That’s a joke. The United States was attacked consistently through the 1990s. We were , in fact, at war. But, under Clinton’s feckless ‘leadership’, we didn’t admit it.
That’s also a joke. Any number of periods in U.S. history have been equally or more prosperous than the 1990s. Also – Reagan laid the foundation; Clinton lucked out. Even what GPW cites as reforms / accomplishments were largely Republican-driven. (Even NAFTA.)
Finally – Why are you quoting White House press releases, written by the Clintons? What’s up next, a note from their moms?
If God forbid Hilary becomes our next president, the best thing she can do for the nation would be to divorce Bill. For the last six months she has been stating that being married to the president made her a partner in the process. So that effectively Bill will be co-president as well.
I can recognize that has much as I dislike the man, he did a decent job on domestic policy, even if it was because there was a Republican House to hold him in check,
But this angry, whinny, red in the face Bill, is now what I want to see anywhere near the White House.
Like Richard Nixon, SlickWillie is the gift that keeps on giving to any opposition… and I mean that in a STD way.
He is a living proof that power corrupts the weakest of character –and let’s not forget his legacy as a divider and a junk yard dog fighter is eclipsed by his status as the only modern president impeached of high crimes.
He should have been stripped of his pension, his secret service detail and had his portrait removed from the White House.
He’s a living disgrace to America and a boon to our enemies abroad… oh wait, that title belongs to JimmineyCricketCarter.
At the very least, Clinton can’t become as evil and repugnant as Carter has. I think perhaps an angry Bill is more effective than a “aw shucks” Bill when it comes to influencing the electorate.
I can forgive and maybe even forget Bill Clinton’s sexual antics but the fact that he did not respond “in kind” (military force) to the twp bombings of the American Embassies in Africa, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and the first WTC bombing in 1993 is unforgivable and should not be forgotten Had he shown the Jihadis that we would not just lie down and take it maybe…just maybe…some 3000 people would not be missed in their homes tonight from the WTC attacks as well as the thousands who have paid the ultimate and many other sacrifices in Afganistan and Iraq. I don’t know exactly what he should have done, but to do virtually nothing other than lobbing a few tomahawks in the general direction of Afghanistan left the message to the Jihadis…”Come and get us!” (Not only that I think he only did that to take the headlines off of Lewinsky) He had a 60% approval rating and he could have gone after these guys and probably had a 100% approval rating. But no….He chose to call it a “law enforcement problem” and America is paying the price because the only time Bill shows any cojones is when he is fooling around with interns, attacking Obama and playing the political game. We should all say enough!!!! of Clintons.
Last night on CNN there was a black commentator who was comparing today’s Bill Clinton to Don King.
That gives you an idea for the damage he is doing to himself in this campaign.
There is a German aphorism that can not be fully translated, but its essence is: “he tries to p*ss with the tall dogs.” Imagine you are a chihuahua in the midst of Great Danes all trying to hoist on one another and you get the picture: You may dampen a few feet, but you are being inundated in the process. But from your point of view, you are a raging success.
Bill Clinton has the chihuahua’s view of things. He is exactly the guy Lyndon Johnson was thinking of when he said he would rather have him “inside the tent p*ssing out, than outside the tent p*ssing in.”
Neither Clinton has a mere mortal’s fear of shame. They lack a sense proportion, propriety and, above all, humility.
To many in the liberal community, this is both chutzpah and political acumen. To most of the others, it is symbol over substance.
I think Bill Clinton believes this is the only way to become more then a footnote in Presidential history.
When even the encyclopedia says (Grolier, The American Presidency):
You know you have an uphill PR battle for the ages.
DKK
The extra damage Clinton is doing to his reputation right now is marginal or even moot, if it all works and the Clintons are restored to power. So he probably figures, “Let’s make it happen.” He didn’t get to be President (the first time) by taking it easy.
Look the Clintons are and have been responsible for this era of hateful and meanspirited politics. When they do it, the MSM are enamored with their political skills. When others even run one “attack” ad, the media label that candidate as playing attack politics. One of the reasons I’d like Hillary and Bill to lose, is so we can finally give the country a chance to turn the page on their power struggle to control the levers of government. I’m wondering how black America is feeling about their hero Bill Clinton about now. Obama was trying to take a high road and elevate the debate and discussions of policy. The Clintons keep playing class, race, gender politics. Question….how do they bring the whole country back together if they do win?
heliotrope at #11 nails it squarely; well written.
I am as sick of the Clintons as I am of the Bushes. Enough already.
and I agree about divisive politics. It is (sadly) an effective strategy in getting elected. But once elected you can’t get anything accomplished.
Every day I’m more and more certain that I can’t vote for Clinton. The question is, IF she get’s the nomination (and I pray she does not), will the GOP or a third party nominate someone I can vote for in good conscience?
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 01/24/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
#17: ditto.
Bill reminds me of a couple of people I’ve known over the years: gregarious glad-handers that can turn ruthlessly vicious in an instant. The friendly outside is a thin veneer over a core of unbridled avarice.
Bill’s putative wife strikes me as cold-blooded – a female Michael Corleone.
I think it’s pretty funny how you rag on Bill Clinton, but the current President Bush is now consumed with his legacy. Apparently, his only post-presidential goal is to become the highest-paid ex-president speaker (according to his interviews with Robert Draper, author of Dead Certain). Also, Dub-yaw seems to believe that he’s going to wave a magic wand of peace over the middle east that will occur some time prior to 1/20/09. I’m a bit more concerned about how much more damage he can do in the next year than I am about the ex-presidential spouse of a presidential wanna-be.
20: ” Also, Dub-yaw seems to believe that he’s going to wave a magic wand of peace over the middle east that will occur some time prior to 1/20/09.”
Magic wand? Is that how Hussein’s regime was toppled? Is that how the Taliban was defeated? With “magic”? Bush has made mistakes, but as the Islamist threat becomes even more dangerous and reckless in the coming years (and it will), Bush will be all the more remembered and praised for taking a stand against evil, pulling the trigger and taking the heat. Clinton had no interest in protecting the lives of Americans or our soldiers against vile terrorists and even Democrats know (but would never admit) that Gore would have gone fetal under his desk if he had faced the adversity Bush dealt with during his Presidency.
Speaking of legacies, I seem to remember a certain two-week vacation Clinton took at Camp David at the end of his second term where he was so desperate to have something on his resume next to “impeached” that he decided to bust out his own “magic wand” and throw a hasty “peace summit” together to unilaterally bring peace to the Middle East himself in under two weeks (this all took place, of course, about 14 seconds before he left office). Clinton invited the lovely and enchanting terrorist Yassir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Barak. Natch, no peace agreement was reached because, duh, Arafat IS A FU*KING TERRORIST. Even a magic wand (especially one that has probably been inside Monica Lewinsky) can’t get a Palestinian to agree to peace if it includes anything less than a few million dead Jews. But it did afford Clinton with several very distinguished photo ops reminiscent of Carter’s Camp David Accords 20 years earlier (which was, afterall, the only thing Clinton wanted at the conclusion of his Presidency anyway).
So let’s review: Bush is faced with 9/11 and decides he will deal with terrorist psychotics by deploying troops to FINALLY start putting bullets in terrorist noggins. And as for Clinton? Well,….what? Some economic prosperity that just happened to take place while he was in office (and in spite of the tax hikes he enacted)? As we continue to fight and root out terrorism throughout the world, how long do you think it will take for people to forget all about that? As the Islamist threat continues to grow in Europe and Asia, do you think people will remember Clinton’s economy, or is it more likely that people are going to start remembering the words, Mogidishu, Kenya, Tanzania, Khobar Towers, U.S.S. Cole, WTC (1993),…
In a post-9/11 world, impeachment is the last thing that will haunt Clinton’s shameful legacy.
#20 is typical of Leftists.. Unable to debate the topic on hand, they choose to engage in tactics of changing the subject, the childish “well Bobby does it too”, or false counterexample.
Anything cept the topic iteself.