The legacy of Bill Clinton's presidency is a complicated one for the progressive movement, and for the Democratic Party. On the positive side, he was a Democrat who actually occupied the White House, something that not many Democrats have been able to do since 1968. He also gave the Democratic Party a very strong branding of fiscal responsibility (a brand that has only improved under the last six years of the Bush administration), and as a reality-based, problem solving party. On the negative side, there are virtually no examples of good legislation he passed that have not since been wiped away by the Bush administration. Further, his most important legislative initiative, universal health care, failed. Also, when Clinton took office in 1992, the Democratic Party had a solid trifecta in DC and a clear majority in the states. When he left office eight years later, the situation had entirely reversed, and Democrats were struggling on the electoral front virtually everywhere. There is also an interesting paradox where the sense among progressives during the 1990's that we were no longer welcome in the Democratic Party played a key role in reviving the progressive movement, which has in turn helped to revive the Democratic Party.
I bring all of this up because with potential nominees such as Gore and Hillary Clinton, the 2008 campaign could largely turn on a debate about America in the 1990's versus America in the 2000's. At first I didn't think there is anyway we can lose this debate (I mean, does anyone like the direction of the country over the last six years more than they did during the 1990's?), but now I wonder if those most closely associated with Bill Clinton's legacy and Presidency are taking the right approach in discussions of that legacy. Will we have the right frames to talk about his Presidency in the event of such a debate? Consider, for example,
Mike McCurry in a recent speech at Princeton:
Striking a tone of slight frustration, President Bill Clinton's former press secretary Mike McCurry '76 characterized the Clinton presidency as a period of significant achievement marred by an increasingly adversarial press and partisan Congress in a lecture to students and visitors in Dodds Auditorium yesterday morning.
Despite Clinton's many domestic and international advances during his two terms as president, McCurry said, above all, "the record and legacy of the Clinton presidency is, dare I use the word, 'stain.' "
"In some ways, he had enormous potential and political gifts. But, they didn't arise because of his lack of discipline," McCurry added.
While it would be useful to have a transcript of the speech before passing judgment upon it, I can't help but think that the use of the word "stain" to summarize Clinton's legacy by a member of his inner circle is, well, anything but
bizarre. Stain? This might even violate one of
my rules of Realpolitik, where Democrats are not supposed to criticize other Democrats in the same manner as Republicans. I am not convinced of that, however, since I doubt McCurry would say something about Clinton in public of which Clinton himself would not approve. Why he would approve of it? I have no idea.
Further, I am not really sure how I would use a quick frame to put the Clinton years in a positive light. Somehow, that is something we never developed. The problem seems to be that we, as both Democrats and progressives, have not done a very good job of defining the Clinton legacy. It is not entirely our fault--I don't think we have been offered very good ways to define the legacy from Clintonistas like McCurry. Remember the "bridge to the 21st century?" What did that even mean? It was pretty weak, which is one of the reasons why even though Clinton was a very popular President, his time in office escapes easy definition.
It isn't the most immediate priority, but I think we need to do some work better coming to grips with how we would define the Clinton presidency. Any thoughts on how you would define his legacy would be welcome in the comments.
