Yesterday I took a break from my politically oriented blogging. I needed a respite so that I could keep my sanity. But that respite shouldn't lead you to believe I've given up on the political season, only that I need to keep my focus -- a focus on matters of faith.
So, renewed, I look out at the situation before us. I've raised this concern before -- a concern about dynasties, something that isn't in line with the American sensibility. We're just finishing up with Bush 2, and so the question is -- do we want to return to the Clinton era. Now the Clinton era wasn't as bad as the current one, but it wasn't perfect. In fact, it was an era marked by political gridlock and ill will. We had a President who decided to govern by manipulating ideas of the other party. Bill and Hillary accuse Barack Obama of praising the GOP as the Party of Ideas, but if you think back to the 1990s, Bill Clinton adopted and reworked many of those ideas for his own benefit. I remember reading accounts of frustrated Republicans, angry that Clinton was always grabbing their ideas and agendas -- like Welfare Reform to give an instance.
So here we are, getting ready for the possibility of Clinton 2. Hillary belittled the idea that Obama was running against two candidates on the same ticket, suggesting that Bill is no different from Michelle or Elizabeth. Now, I may be naive and all, but somehow having as your spouse the former President of the United States is a bit different from the situations that Michelle and Elizabeth find themselves in. Both are extremely intelligent, productive, supportive contributors to their husbands campaigns. Most assuredly they would be influential advisers should either husband be elected, but their situation is closer to what Hillary's was in 1992, that is Bill's in 2008. So, give me a break! Don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that Bill is just another spouse!
Rosa Brooks, writing in the LA Times today, makes this very point. Back in 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned on the premise that by electing him, the country would get two for the price of one. That same premise is behind Hillary's current campaign. Yes, she has her own credentials and her own platforms, but while that's true she wants it both ways. She wants to be her own person and also benefit from Bill's experiences and supporters. Many who are supporting her are looking nostalgically back to the 1990s and want a restoration of the Clinton Era in the 21st Century.
Brooks writes:
But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.
It's true that the Bush administration is enough to make anyone nostalgic for the Clinton era. Compared with the catastrophes that President Bush unleashed, Bill Clinton's misdeeds seem like minor peccadilloes. Under Clinton, the United States didn't fall into a potentially devastating economic crisis, didn't rack up record-breaking debts and budget deficits, didn't adopt a policy of torturing people, didn't seek to gut international human rights standards, didn't get bogged down in any major, pointless and unwinnable wars and didn't actively alienate huge swathes of the global population.
On the other hand -- and where the Clintons are concerned, it's always wise to wonder what the hand you can't see is up to -- once you stop comparing the Clinton presidency with the Bush presidency, it no longer looks so great. On the whole, the Clinton era was a time of culture war and scandal, "triangulation" and botched reforms (healthcare anyone?), vacillation and paralysis.
So, are we ready for Clinton II? Are we ready for another dynastic reign? Are we ready for the bad that comes with the good? We as the electorate must pay close attention to these questions. We need to ask ourselves about the mean-spirited and deceptive campaign being waged, especially by Bill Clinton.
And so I leave you with this from Brook's column:
Obama offers something transformative and new, and this frightens some voters, who wonder if he can live up to his undeniable potential. The Clintons, meanwhile, offer something old and familiar. But will a trip down memory lane with Billary reassure voters or end up frightening them even more?
Comments