I am having difficulty with your phrase "Clinton is the most successful president of our lifetimes (sic)." I believe that you meant that he was (is) one of the more popular, in a snapshot done today. His approval rating, like all American presidents, varies greatly over his term in office. And like all American presidents, there were times during his presidency when he was clearly unpopular.
As for his success as a president, I believe that the jury is still out. It does take some time for partisanship to pass before a president can fairly be judged on his record. We are just coming to grips with what Nixon meant to the country, and his legacy is still being felt (both positively and negatively). Case in point, without Nixon's trip to China, it is unlikely that we would consider establishing trade relations. Interestingly, Nixon is still considered an icon over there.
Back to my point, Clinton will receive a mixed review, IMHO. Certainly he did preside over a strong economy, for which he should get credit. However as far as groundbreaking legislation or initiatives, he comes up short. Much of what was done was forced upon him, or he was fortunate enough to be in office when it occurred. I am speaking here of the budget. The budget surplus in large part came from the winding down of the S&L situation, which had wreaked havoc with Bush Sr.'s budgets. Can Clinton take credit? Some, but not much. The Cold War dividend also allowed him to pare back the DoD, again which was an event not under his control. He was fortunate, however, that his national health care initiative did not pass muster with the opposition party. That budget-buster would certainly have doomed him to a miserable legacy, much like Johnson's "War on Poverty." Grand idea, very noble, but lacking in execution, planning, cost control and out of touch with the American ideal of controlling their own lives.
As for foreign affairs, Clinton had no real victories or real losses. Taking the long term implications of his presidency, his greatest impact perhaps could be placing US forces under UN command. This could be a very bad harbinger of things to come, as American kids are sent hither and yon to die for the secretary general of an international organization under foreign (non-US) commanders. As a parent, I would strongly discourage my children to join the military should there be the possibility that they could wind up wearing the blue helmet of the UN under a UN flag, rather than under an American flag. This is just my opinion, though. Feel free to comment.
The net result is that, in my opinion Clinton will be remembered as an average president. In light of his treatment of the law (it was certainly more than "just about sex," it was the flagrant violation of his oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Last time I checked, that was a felony.), I suppose he should be glad. However it does disturb me that he is angling for a Nobel Peace Prize to cover a legacy of impeachment (yes, he was impeached!) by brokering a hasty deal in the Mideast. The Wye Accords have only lead to the troubles that we are seeing in the region today. Mr. Arafat has only to wait it out and let the world come to his door. Meanwhile, Albright, et.al. coerce Israel to make more concessions. Given that the Israeli leadership is politically weak and in dire need of a deal, they give in. Clinton could have avoid all of this by holding Arafat's feet to the fire to honor the Olso deal more closely, but he did not.
I have rambled far enough. In my opinion, the Clinton/Gore team has been unremarkable, at best, for a variety of factors. A Gore presidency would most likely be more activist (Clinton was a master at co-opting the opposition's ideas, Gore is an idealogue), which would most likely meet with strong popular opposition. His ideas tend to reflect the strong left of his base with little room for compromise. Should he be elected, in my opinion, unless he changes his tone it is unlikely that he would get a second term. He does not have the personality or the political instincts of his boss to help him through tough times, nor the ability to effectively communicate his ideas. Not unlike Bush Sr. when he was elected.
Feel free to comment
G Howe |
