OPEN UNIVERSITY JANUARY 30, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I don't think we need to delve for any psychological explanation of a deep change in Bill Clinton's character, because I don't think there's been one.
After all, the tension (if it is a tension) between Clinton the smart and charismatic progressive and Clinton the brutal bare-knuckles campaigner was such a common trope coming out of the 1992 campaign that it could get put at the center of Joe Klein's Primary Colors. Clinton may have beat Bush in the fall of 1992 by feeling the audience's pain--but he beat Paul Tsongas in the spring by blanketing Florida in lies and deceptions about Social Security and Israel. Nothing Bill's done in the last several weeks should come as any surprise to anyone who remembers Florida '92. Later, he dispatched Jerry Brown with one of those strategic shows of temper, exploding at him in a debate that Brown had crossed the line by mentioning the corruption charges involving shady deals between the Arkansas state government and Hillary's law firm: "You ought to be ashamed of yourself for jumping on my wife. You're not worth being on the same platform as my wife." (Because, of course, it turned out that neither Whitewater nor Hillary had any drag effects on Bill in the future that Democratic voters in 1992 might have wanted to think about, and so both were off-limits as topics, right?)
When the first comparisons between Obama and reformist eggheads of past Democratic primaries (Tsongas, Stevenson, Paul Simon, Gary Hart) started surfacing, my thought was, "Bill Clinton's very first lesson in national politics was how to eat a candidate like that for lunch." Now, either it turns out that Obama has a cannier sense of politics than those others, or that Bill's lost his touch, because it's not working so well this time. But I have limited patience for those who are now shocked, shocked! that Bill can be a mean guy on the campaign trail.
This is to say nothing, of course, of Clinton's brutal effectiveness at crushing Republican adversaries--Newt Gingrich in roughly calendar year 1995, Ken Starr in calendar year 1998. (And throughout he was quite willing to brutalize--or to authorize his deputies like James Carville to brutalize--the names and reputations of the women involved in his various sex scandals.) I understand that most who are flocking to Obama's defense now are glad Clinton so ruthlessly crushed his GOP opponents in the 1990s. But that shouldn't blind them to the reality that he did so with no particular regard for niceties or honesty.
And yet he was an excellent President, all things considered. Sometimes in spite of himself, sometimes thanks to constraints set on him by his opposition, but still. For many, many years he's been so convinced of his own importance, his own ability to get great things done, that he's been willing to crush those who got in his way. (He was sure that he could win the presidency in '92 and make a difference, and that Tsongas couldn't; so Tsongas had to go.) And however great a moral flaw that is, he wasn't crazy to think that he could be an important and effective leader. That doesn't make him two different people. He is now, and was then, someone of political brilliance, charisma, and ruthlessness. All the same guy.
--Jacob T. Levy
11 comments
Clinton should be playing the role of the hierophant, passing on his wisdom to the young initiate, making sure the new leader succeeds. He betrayed his role. Throughout various mythologies (e.g., the Mystery religions), the aging leader passes the torch with grace. Clinton's refusal to give up his throne is the stuff of Shakespeare.
And like something out of Shakespeare, a true hierophant emerges, Ted Kennedy, to anoint the new leader.
- fougasseu
January 30, 2008 at 12:12pm
Remember Ricky Ray?
Same as it ever was.
- teplukhin2you
January 30, 2008 at 12:25pm
My thesis and bromide: D.H. Lawrence was elementally right: politics is a mug's game. If it's the art of the possible, what else could it be, Obama's high flown speeches to the contrary notwithstanding?
- basman
January 30, 2008 at 4:30pm
Forget to mention that Ricky ray was so beyond the pale that I could gag thinking about it. Ricky Ray was more than a mug's game. It was fucking horrible.
- basman
January 30, 2008 at 4:32pm
Jacob Levy - That made a lot of sense. Thanks.
- jobeek2
January 31, 2008 at 10:51am
Liberals may have forgotten the bare knuckles approach the Clintons took to defeating Tsongas, Brown, et. al. in the primaires, but Conservatives and other long-time Clinton haters are getting a free pass in historical revisionism about the supposed ruthlessness of the Clintons in dealing with GIngrich, Starr and the other Republicans in the 90s. It was the Right that launched the vindictive and and highly personal attacks on the Clintons, overwhelmingly with little merit, culminating in the impeachment. The vast majority of Americans saw through that for what it was -- a purely partisan attempt to get rid of Clinton when they couldn't do so at the ballot box.
The Clintons are still living in that any means to an end political world and the public, after 8 years of an even more partisan brand of politics eminating from Bush, wants to move on.
- Bheeger
January 31, 2008 at 2:23pm
In re Bill Clinton being a good president, was that before or after the 1994 congressional election?
Looks to me like we get better government when we have divided government, president of one party, one or both houses of congress controlled by the other. Myself, I prefer a Democratic congress overseeing a Republican president.
- hrlngrv
February 1, 2008 at 5:22pm
I prefer people who are pro-government on the inside, people who are anti-government on the outside, and a strong, vigilant, insightful press overseeing it all.
- fougasseu
February 2, 2008 at 3:32pm
I agree that Bill Clinton was a good (if not excellent) president. The best of my adult life by a long shot, being the only democrat and closest to my own political philosophy. But he was also an exhausting one to have in your living room every night. His level of self-absorption and constant psycho-drama was just deadly after a while. I couldn't have been more angry at the 2000 election and NObody thinks any less of George Bush than I do, but I have to admit that for the first several weeks after Bush took office in 2001, I felt a profound sense of relief to have Bill off the national stage (or at least the most visible parts of it) for a while.
The feeling passed and the horrors of the Bush administration kicked in and made me yearn for the days of Clinton's time in office. And I even sort of forgot that feeling. I was as positively inclined towards Hillary as I was toward Obama at the start of this campaing. But the last several weeks have brought that exhaution SCREAMING back to the fore. I can't tell you the dread I started feeling at the idea of Bill Clinton back on the front pages on a regular basis. I'm a strong Obama supporter now, partially because of the opportunity I believe he presents, but partially its an anti-Clinton feeling. The last week, since Hillary booted him back down to the farm, have been a relief again. The Thursday debate reminded me that I wouldn't be uncomfortable with HER as president, if she ends up with the nomination. But the idea of another four or eight years of HIM is just intolerable and she'd have to convince me that he's gonna be a low-profile part of her administration before I could even vote for her in the general. These are petty personal concerns, I realize - they should pale compared to the huge issues we face. And, hopefully, if faced with the choice, I'll do the right thing and vote for her. But we're all somewhat selfish when we step into the voting booth and I can't deny how difficult it will be not to vote for McCain in that situation.
-Ray
- ramboorider
February 3, 2008 at 5:10am
Couldn't agree with Rayboorider more... but you know it goes far deeper than just a matter of self absorbed style... the performance in South Carolina is the epitome of what we have come to detest in the way Republicans conduct political campaigns...
At least McCain is a man of honor and Huckabee campaigns with style, grace and good humour. That is far more than what can be said of the Clintons. It really is time that we turned that page, regardless... for the good of the country.
- Annabella2
February 10, 2008 at 4:33pm
"Somewhat selfish?"
I don't care whether you're a Clinton or Obama supporter, but to vote for McCain, which is to say for unending commitment in Iraq, a continuation of Bush's catastrophic tax cuts, no change in the health care system, etc., because you find the prospect of Bill Clinton's return to the public sphere annoying is beyond somewhat selfish. It is globally reckless, bordering on sociopathic. Considering what is at stake, I find these comments from Democrats about voting for McCain over Clinton because of Bill's or her personal style exceedingly difficult to comprehend. Come on people.
- baldrick2
February 13, 2008 at 4:07pm