Bill Clinton: Not My Friend

If you're a subscriber to the Atlantic Monthly, don't miss this piece on Bill Clinton's political and policy legacy.

Jack Beatty makes the spot-on argument that Bill Clinton's legacy is one of very modest lasting policy change - embodied most notably in the Family Medical Leave Act and welfare reform - and catastrophic political damage to the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton governed to the lasting benefit of Bill Clinton, and none other.

Welfare reform, one of two his signature policy legacies, not only sold out legal immigrants and explicitly abandoned the right of the indigent to help from their government (read the law), but split the party - and even his own administration, losing several great public servants who left in protest - in service primarily to his own re-election efforts.

As Jack Beatty puts it:

Welfare reform has yielded some positive results since its enactment in 1996, though most of the jobs filled by welfare recipients pay low wages, offer few benefits, and are likely to disappear in economic downturns, and the effects on children who had to bring themselves up in the absence of their working mothers has yet to be measured. But it misrepresents the historical context for Clinton, as he did in his speech, to bask in the humanitarian glow of a policy choice motivated more by his reelection campaign against Bob Dole than by his compassion for single mothers caught up in welfare dependency. With welfare reform, Clinton did not "put people first," as he claimed Thursday; he put Bill Clinton first.

Moreover (again quoting Mr. Beatty),

In Little Rock, Clinton said he "kept score," and that ordinary Americans were better off when he left than when he entered office. But not for long. Since they don't have "health care that's always there" (because he failed to lead), nothing Clinton did for them can compensate for what the Republican Congress will not do for them. For the twelve years of Reagan-Bush, the minimum wage was not raised; and the GOP Congress did not raise it during Bush's first term, and won't in his second. The working poor lost when the GOP won. The working poor—ordinary Americans who can't afford to take the unpaid family leave that Clinton claims as one of his signature achievements.

Whoops….there goes some serious shine off the lasting benefit of his only other major policy achievement.

I understand that the benefits of Clinton’s two policy legacies are arguable – in fact, I’ve argued with many of you who think they’re much more grand and sterling than I do. I always love to hear arguments about other policy stuff he did that wasn’t overturned before the end of 2000 – those arguments are typically very, very short. But what’s inarguable is where he left the party.

To start with the most obvious: I firmly believe that Clinton’s philandering is and was an issue of concern primarily to Mrs. Clinton, and perhaps Clinton’s many dalliances. As a wife, spousal fidelity is vitally important to me, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a reflection of how well a person can govern the nation. I agree in substance with the ubiquitous battle cry of MoveOn, et. al.: when Clinton lied, no one died. If I’ve got to choose what my President’s going to lie about, I’d prefer it be about his sex life than the physical security of the country.

But in his failure to keep it zipped in the Oval Office, and his subsequent willingness to lie about it (not to mention sacrifice his staff’s credibility to the lie), he armed the “values” zealots with invaluable ammunition and opportunities to practice to mastery the tactic of character assassination.

In a not unrelated failure, and I recognize this will be more controversial, Clinton led us away from being a party of principles to being one firmly of politics. If you’re not convinced that this is true, read through Newsweek’s account of his suggestions to Kerry visa vis coming out in favor of the gay marriage amendments in swing states for a refresher. To give credit where it’s due, Clinton was absolutely solid on choice, and if it weren’t for his vetoes we no doubt would have had an outright ban on third trimester abortions a decade ago. But move beyond choice, and you see a man dedicated to no principle other than winning. Not gay rights. Not environmental protection. Not health care. Not the poor. Not education. There was nothing he was willing to risk his own political skin for - which is a different charge than saying he didn't do anything good on those issues. He did, but only when it cost him absolutely nothing. He is a brilliant orator with a knack for making people believe that he “feels their pain,” but he put that tremendous skill to use in service almost entirely to himself, not the principles he ostensibly ran to champion.

The President is not only the head of the nation, but he’s the leader of his party. Clinton ultimately failed in both regards. During his tenure, the country was absolutely better off than it would have been under either Bush I or Dole, but he did nothing to secure that state of affairs for after his departure. When it comes to his party, his failures will continue to be felt for elections to come, I fear. Under his leadership, our state parties faltered, our grassroots withered, and we lost our principles. Bill Clinton’s no hero of mine, and neither are his campaign “pros” we’ve been so deifying of late. In my mind, they’re all old dogs that need to get out of the way if we hope to rebuild in any meaningful way.