After a speech at the Center for American Progress on Friday, an ABC News "This Week" interview on Sunday and an op-ed in The New York Times on Monday, Clinton's resurgence amounts to a reassessment of his presidency -- and Bubba is looking pretty good in the rearview mirror of history, even to his one-time critics. Clinton pivoted back toward the center in the second half of his first term. He worked with Republicans to pass welfare reform with bipartisan margins, over the objections of his liberal base. He was committed to a free-trade agenda and continued to pursue policies that turned a deficit into a surplus, while actually shrinking the size of the federal work force. While recognizing that "the era of big government is over," he was able to make the case for a more limited but still activist government. He reclaimed the allegiance of moderates and the middle class and was re-elected.
Of course, any discussion of Clinton's legacy cannot ignore his self-inflicted scandals. I was a Clinton kid -- a freshman in college in the fall of 1992, a White House intern the same summer as Monica Lewinsky, and a worker at his 1996 convention. I remember the sense of personal betrayal I felt when the man who had so evenly said, "I have less and less control over my reputation, but I still have full control over my character" proved less than candid.
The fact that he was the second president impeached outweighs the fact that he was the first Democratic president re-elected since FDR. Nonetheless, after all the drama and disappointment, he left office with a sky-high 62 percent approval rating. It was a clear endorsement of Clinton's policies, if not his personal life, from the American people.
Given the fury of the partisan fights between conservatives and Clinton, it seems odd that the mid-1990s would now look like a golden age of bipartisan cooperation. But that divided government proved the most fiscally responsible of the modern era.
Through the eyes of history, it seems Clinton was essentially what he said he was: a centrist Southern president who was focused on economic growth. He understood the necessity of forming a durable political coalition and governing from the center -- and in the process, he started a third-way philosophy of governing that proved its ultimate success with Tony Blair across the Atlantic.
The resurgence of some of Clinton's old critics, wielding similar lines of attack at Obama, should give cause for pause. At the same time, Obama can learn from some of the lessons of Clinton to recenter his presidency. And we all should take to heart the 42nd president's recent warning that "there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws."
To see politics, we must view it with the broadest sense of perspective -- remembering that patriotism is ultimately more important than partisanship.
Great article. I love the last line about patriotism being more important than politics - I wish the leaders of both parties felt the same.
You have got to love Big Dawg. I mean in looking back on his WH years, America was in a safer, much more stable position. Things went south when W took over, and OMG, they've really taken a dive with Obama and the libs in charge.
One thing about welfare reform that's important - the liberals HATED it, and it really lowered their opinion of Bill. I mean, it's not surprising that they disapproved of him and the bill. To the libs, "social justice" is all about wealth redistribution. IMO, they don't see social justice in the broader more accurate context - which may include a financial component - but not always. It's a much broader ideal than that. I was unaware of how much the libs hated Welfare Reform (and disapproved of Bill) until recently, when was reviewing some sociology and social work text books. The fact that welfare reform is mentioned in the texts is appropriate - considering the topic. But, in some of the books, the commentary by the author about Bill Clinton was pretty harsh. Repeatedly in a number of books, he was very sharply criticized. The fact that it was necessary for him to compromise and include some measures he didn't like in the bill, in order to get other important legislation passed didn't matter. They cut him little slack for that. Well, I'm sorry, but that isn't reality - in life, or in government. The Pubs were never going to allow him to pass anything meaningful - unless he did something about welfare reform. Period.
-- Edited by freespirit on Friday 23rd of April 2010 03:57:12 AM
__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. ~Susan B. Anthony