Wednesday, January 24, 2001
|
Wednesday, January 24, 2001 |
|
Could've been better; could've been worse By DAVE HAMRICK As George W. Bush continues his first week in the Oval Office and Bill Clinton moves into his posh offices in Manhattan (far away from Hillary), many are wondering and posturing on how history will view the Clinton era. Of course, most in the media are fixated on the degree to which his sexual shenanigans and subsequent impeachment will overshadow his accomplishments. And certainly his effect on American cynicism the view that it's OK to lie, cheat and steal if necessary for the good of the party (and one's own gratification) because "everybody's doing it" and besides, "What about Iran/Contra?" is worth studying and writing about. But more important, in my opinion, is whether and to what degree Clinton has started a trend toward governance by pulse-taking. Will this become the norm in the future? Are we moving in the direction of becoming a true democracy? I refer to the fact that has become well-known, that the Clinton Administration made virtually every decision based upon polling results. I predict that as time goes on many will be surprised to learn just how methodically the formula was followed. One hears constantly about the phenomenal approval rating the president enjoyed. But it's not surprising in light of the religious fervor with which he practiced the art of finding out where the majority stood on every single issue and then composing his speeches and his agenda accordingly. But that's a good thing, right? Doing what the people want... isn't that what America is supposed to be all about? If you're a regular reader, I would hope you don't have to ask that question. But for those who aren't, let me quickly state that this nation is not now nor has it ever been a democracy. Pure democracy would allow the majority to plunder, rape and pillage the minority, all the while chanting, "This is what the people want." Leadership, on the other hand, is what John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson both exercised when they stood up for civil rights, even when a majority of Americans still were not ready to accept the concept. I didn't agree with a lot of things those two presidents did, but on that score I must applaud them. Search your memory banks, if you will, and see if you can find a single instance in which Bill Clinton took a political risk and stood against the majority and on the side of some great (or even minor) principle. As for accomplishments, there were some. Bill Clinton was not the greatest foreign policy president we've ever had, but he deserves credit for doggedly working for peace in war-torn parts of the world. He also worked for improvements in social programs, using his charm and negotiating toughness to get more money for some that deserved more money... as well as some that did not. He improved the foreign trade picture, fending off isolationism in partnership with those in both parties who understand how small the world is becoming. And he did finally sign a welfare reform bill, after reading the polls. Whether his success in gaining Most Favored Nation status for China turns out to be a positive or a negative remains to be seen. In either case, it will be part of the Clinton legacy. Oh, yes, and there's the economy. It has been robust the last eight years. True, the president has little to do with that, though most of them are more than ready to take credit for it. But at least he didn't mess it up and, regardless of whether that's due to his own wisdom or the fact that he couldn't get his bloated budgets through Congress, it remains a positive. On the negative side: The "middle class tax cut," promised in not one but two elections, never materialized. Clinton never even introduced it. The military is in a shambles. Early in his presidency, Clinton methodically downsized the military, and then failed to budget for simple maintenance. Now, with morale flagging, recruiting is crippled. Yes, the youth of today simply are interested in other things, and economic prosperity has made the recruiters' job tougher. But potential recruits also are aware that they will have to spend an inordinate amount of time overseas, pay and benefits are down and the equipment they will have to use, even the ammunition, has been neglected. That doesn't help either. Rebuilding will have to be done, and it will be costly. That, too, is part of the Clinton legacy, though in the ever-shallow national media, Bush will probably get the blame for the burden it will place on the economy. This may shock you, but after all of the positives and negatives are put into a pot and allowed to simmer for a few decades, I think the overall view of the Clinton presidency will be somewhat positive. History, I predict, will acknowledge that he never lived up to his promise. With his talent, he could have achieved greatness, but his weakness and recklessness prevented that. So it could have been much better. But consider this: If that recklessness had not been paired with that charm, intellect and talent, it also could have been much, much worse.
|
||