|
Jewish World Review Jan. 18, 2001 / 23 Teves 5761
Philip Terzian
To some degree, Mr. Clinton's public search for a tangible legacy at this late date is an
acknowledgment of failure. And this gifted politician, who remains popular with voters,
suspects what the verdict of history might be. At the moment, the conventional wisdom is not
generous: Clinton is a man of exceptional skill who squandered his talents, and whose personal
weaknesses undermined the efforts of his well-intentioned allies. It is startling to note that
this is not the reasoning of his enemies, but his friends and associates! His presidency was a
series of mortifying firsts: First president since Andrew Johnson to endure an impeachment
trial; first president to order missile attacks on a foreign nation to distract attention from
his domestic troubles; first president to be credibly accused of rape; and so on.
But the verdict of history is not always consistent with the judgment of journalism. Harry
Truman, who is now widely admired, was reviled when he left Washington in 1953. The shadow of
John Kennedy's manner of death is now lifting to reveal a less-than-stellar presidency. Dwight
Eisenhower's reputation is much healthier among historians today than it wa 40 years ago. The
same process that separates the pertinent from the trivial, the enduring from the ephemeral,
may work to Bill Clinton's advantage in the long run.
Then again, it may not. No one disputes that Clinton, as a politician, has been
extraordinarily deft and personally charming; but to what end? Franklin Roosevelt was charm
personified, and accused of being a slippery politician * as, indeed, he was. But FDR's skills
were put to the test on matters of principle, and at some personal cost.
Clinton has not hesitated to use the presidency as a vehicle for self-aggrandizement, and
he always enjoyed tactical advantage over his adversaries. But apart from maintaining high poll
ratings, and keeping the Republicans in Congress off balance, it is difficult to point to many
Clinton achievements or legislative landmarks. The one thing our first Baby Boomer president
might have done -- reform, and thereby strengthen, Social Security and Medicare -- he refused
to do, preferring to wield the issue as a cudgel against Republicans. Having won 43 percent of
the vote in 1992, Clinton and his ambitious wife set out to nationalize one-seventh of the
American economy. When they failed, at the hands of a Democratic Congress, Clinton retreated
from the realm of principle to personal survival.
Democrats love Bill Clinton, but largely because Republicans dislike him so intensely:
Having lost control of Congress in 1994, the Democratic party has consistently lost ground in
the cities and states. The most that can be said for the growing economy Clinton inherited is
that he and his Treasury secretaries did not interfere to its detriment. His legislative
victories -- welfare reform, GATT and NAFTA -- were Republican initiatives to which he signed
on, or GOP issues he took up as his own. The surplus and balanced budget were not Democratic
causes when they fell into Clinton's lap. As he once said, the era of big government is over;
and while the late Speaker may be gone from the limelight, the political word we inhabit is
Newt Gingrich's, not Bill Clinton's.
In the end, I would guess, it is Clinton's impeachment that exemplifies his presidency. Few
would argue that (within reason) a president's sexual behavior is germane to his legacy. But
the trouble in which Clinton found himself during 1998-99 was too characteristic to ignore. Not
only did he choose to employ an impressionable post-adolescent as his White House comfort
woman, but he did so at a time of maximum political peril. He did not hesitate to lie to his
subordinates, who lied in turn on his behalf, and he treated the judicial system as a game to
be played. While Clinton's adultery may seem unimportant, and the state of his marriage is
nobody else's business, smart lawyers know better than to perjure themselves -- even at the
cost of personal embarrassment -- and presidents should refrain from practicing the politics of
personal destruction.
When George W. Bush said that he would restore "dignity and honor" to the Oval Office, he
did not have to explain in detail what he meant. "Clintonian," after all, is not a term of
praise. So, perhaps, the search for a legacy ends
01/16/01: Take this job and ...
|