Clinton's "Legacy"

Great Debates
1

There is much talk now about what his “legacy” will be. That is, what will the historians remember his tenure in office for? Will it be for the economic prosperity (which in no way was brought about by his direct actions, it was all Greenspan), or will he, like Nixon, be remembered solely for his missteps and personal shortcomings?

I think that his legacy will be this: he drove the final wedge between the political parties. He once and for all polarized our system beyond any any concievable repair. I came to this revelation last night, when the Republicans sat on their hands dutifully. (I consider myself a Republican and an anti-Clintite, but that was just rude and disrespectful.) Then I started thinking about when I watched the impeachment vote go straight along the party lines (a few Republicans crossed over, but no Democrats). I remember thinking then “Oh my God, what is happening?” Now, I believe strongly in our political system, and I don’t mind the two-party setup too much, and it is necessary for a few reasons (number one being that it prevents the American public from putting a complete crackpot in office). But the complete division that we have seen during the last seven years is just insane. Last night, whenever he looked to his left (our right), I saw a look in his eyes and a grin on his face that just said “I beat ya, ya sons o’ bitches! I whooped ya good!”

Any other thoughts on what he might be remembered for?

The IQ of a group is equal to the IQ of the dumbest member divided by the number of people in the group.

2

If you think the Republicans were cold to Clinton, you should’ve seen the Democratic reaction to Nixon’s State of the Union speeches.

I don’t agree that Clinton can take no credit for the economy – and even if he couldn’t he sure would’ve been blamed if it had gone sour. I think he’ll be remembered as a moderate force, he irritated both conservatives and liberals.

He’ll also be remembered as coming back after the Republican victories in 1994. But ultimately, he will be remembered as someone who failed to get his big initiatives (like health care) through Congress, not to mention being only the second President to be impeached.

3

Considering the knee-jerk reaction I hear from at least one person in every crowd whenever Clinton’s name is spoken, I’m guessing he’ll be remembered as having his last name spelled with a “K”.

4

Rousseau, I am not overly thrilled by the antics that have come to light from the White House, and I am pleased to see that you consider the Republicans sitting on their hands to be inexcusably rude.

But I do have a problem with your opening comment:

First, it smacks of “you made me do it.” Ignoring his personal life and sometimes-abrasive wife, Clinton has regularly if inconsistently espoused some of the things Republicans have been calling for (tax cuts, business-friendly economy, shrinking size of government) and has been no more partisan than a half dozen or so previous presidents. Indeed, a case could be made that he has been less so, though I would not want to be the spin doctor called to put that particular spin on the situation.

Second, Republicans have been demonizing Democractic presidents, and Democrats Republican ones, for at least 67 years (I’m not terribly familiar with party politics before FDR). So I would suggest that your statement is hyperbolic.

To me, Clinton is the man who came into office with a mandate to re-establish the FDR/HST/JFK legacy for the Democrats, and wasted his chances. He fought silly battles, failed to stand strongly enough for the things he should have fought for, and in general threw away what the Democratic Party expected to accomplish.

However, if for no other reason than that he didn’t try to fix what was working, he deserves credit for a thriving economy.

Disclosure: I spent my first 40 years as a Republican, including working alongside my aunt and other party regulars as a child. I registered as a Democrat when we moved, because what had been Abe Lincoln’s heirs gathered for a family reunion became Jerry Falwell draped in a flag.

5

Allow me to rephrase, if I may:
I think that his legacy will be this: his tenure drove the final wedge between the political parties.

I didn’t mean to imply that he is responsible for this all by his lonesome (although I do mean to imply that history doesn’t usually have 20/20 vision, and he may be remembered for doing it himself anyway). But he does seem to have a smug attitude about him since his party bested the other one in the impeachment hearing. And, if I may interject another comment about last night’s debate, I kind of thought it was silly of him to mention the armed forces just to make the Republicans put their hands together. He is the one man who shouldn’t utter a single word about the military. He deliberatly looked to his left when he said it, too.

Plus, aside from reappointing Greenspan, I don’t think he can boast any actions taken to significantly contribute to our current state (aside from coming up with the slogan “It’s the Economy, Stuid”–and he probably didn’t come up with that by himself either). In actuality, although I give Greenspan a lot of credit, I also think that he was blessed with great timing. The advent of the Internet and the tech boom are the things that are really responsible for the current economic atmosphere. But that’s another great debate, I suppose.

The IQ of a group is equal to the IQ of the dumbest member divided by the number of people in the group.

6

That should be “It’s the Economy, Stupid.” What a stuid thing for me to do.

Hey, David. What the hell? What is this “flood-control” nonsense??

The IQ of a group is equal to the IQ of the dumbest member divided by the number of people in the group.

7

I think Clinton’s legacy will be obscurity, Rousseau.

The economy is good, but Congress, Alan Greenspan, the governors and the state legistatures have much to do with that. The president’s impact on the national economy is overstated by an ignorant media with no understanding of economics. Also, I think both the public and historians tend to ignore those who preside in good times. That’s why you read more about Lincoln than Millard Fillmore, more about FDR than Calvin Coolidge.

Unless the air campaign against Serbia becomes a model for future conflicts, no significant military actions have been taken during Clinton’s tenure.

The Clinton administration’s social policies have been middle-of-the road and rather modest.

I doubt Clinton will receive much credit for any significant international policies. NAFTA will probably be remembered as significant, but it was favored by many other politicians, including Reagan, and I don’t think the Wye River agreements are going to hold up much longer. (Also, remember it was the Norwegians who initially brought the Palestinians and Israelis together).

The impeachment will be mentioned only briefly in history books. How many well-informed people today can tell you why Andrew Johnson was impeached? In fact, I would be willing to bet that many Americans cannot even tell you who Johnson was.

FDR will probably be the best-remembered president of the 20th Century because he held the office during WW2 and the Great Depression, and because his administration fathered the modern welfare state in America.

Historians will study Teddy Roosevelt’s administration in detail because he did more than anyone else to foster American imperialism. TR will also be remembered for the very significant social legislation (the creation of the FDA et al) passed during his administration.

Truman will be remembered for dropping the Bomb, possibly The Korean War if future historians conclude, as some already have, that that was the most significant event in the Cold War.

Woodrow Wilson will be remembered by historians only for his work on the Versailles Treaty, and his failed efforts to get the US to join the League of Nations.

Eisenhower will be remembered as a general, but not, I suspect, as a president.

Kennedy may be remembered for promoting the space program (although I think future generations will condemn the stupidity of going to the moon before a permanent space station was in place). Reagan may be remembered for his anti-communism. Nixon may be remembered, both for Watergate and for the significant accomplishments of his administration. Hoover may be remembered because the Crash of '29 occured during his watch. However, I wouldn’t bet on the last three.

I think all other 20th presidents, Slick Willie included, will be as obscure in the future as James Buchanan and Benjamin Harrison are today.

The Coyote gnaws …
but he does not swallow.

8

I think that Clinton will be remembered mostly for putting back together the traditional Democratic alliance - working-class whites, minorities, and women. Voters in these demographics always voted more Democratic than others. For the thirty years before his election, Democrats tried too hard for the “wine and cheese liberal” vote. Though there’s some of that in Clinton, there’s also a lot of the redneck Southerner (note: I mean that as a compliment) in him, and this combination of appeals to different groups is what made him electable. What’s still seldom mentioned about Clinton is that he comes from the poorest family of anyone since Reagan who has been elected or nominated for President or Vice-President. (Reagan’s family was about equal in economic status.) It wasn’t really a poor family, of course, just a struggling middle-class one, but his background is much more representative of the average American than, say, either of the Bushes or Gore.

(I don’t want to put down “wine and cheese” liberalism either. Democrats need their votes, but they need other groups as well.)

It’s probably true that Alan Greenspan has had more influence on the economy than Clinton has, but Clinton probably comes next in influence, and Congress comes third.

9

Two points:

  • most Presidents are remembered by a short phrase or statement. “Nixon resigned” - “FDR: New Deal/WWII.” My guess for Clinton: “impeached but beat the rap.”

  • Greenspan may have the most influence on the economy, but Clinton’s kept him on for 8 years. As Chief Executive Clinton should get some credit: “Hire the best, then let him do his job.”

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe

10

Clinton’s claim to the booming economy is something he should phrase thus: “Ah was thar when it happened.”

While it’s true, as kunilou pointed out, that Clinton would certainly bear blame had the economy gone south, I agree with the Coyote that, while the simpletons who masquerade as journalists will credit Willie with some sort of economic miracle, historians of the future will see through that foolishness.

Almost every major event in Clinton’s presidency has borne out one simple fact: the SOB is lucky.

I don’t know why fortune smiles on some and lets the rest go free…

T

11

[quote]
Originally posted by TBone2:
Clinton’s claim to the booming economy is something he should phrase thus: “Ah was thar when it happened.”

[QUOTE]

Don’t you realize that you’re putting down Clinton for as trivial a thing as the fact that you don’t like his accent? That sort of thing doesn’t belong in rational argument.

I see no evidence whatsoever that journalists are attributing more to Clinton than he deserves. I think the press has been harder on him than other presidents within my memory (and I’m 47). I think that if anyone was lucky it was Reagan. There was at least as much reason for impeaching him as there was for Clinton. Furthermore, the harm that Reagan did to the American economy is still generally unacknowledged.

12

Let me try that again. I messed up the quoting.

TBone2 says:

> Clinton’s claim to the booming economy is
> something he should phrase thus: “Ah was
> thar when it happened.”

Don’t you realize that you’re putting down Clinton for as trivial a thing as the fact that you don’t like his accent? That sort of thing doesn’t belong in rational argument.

> While it’s true, as kunilou pointed out,
> that Clinton would certainly bear blame
> had the economy gone south, I agree with
> the Coyote that, while the simpletons who
> masquerade as journalists will credit
> Willie with some sort of economic miracle,
> historians of the future will see through
> that foolishness.
>
> Almost every major event in Clinton’s
> presidency has borne out one simple fact:
> the SOB is lucky.

I see no evidence whatsoever that journalists are attributing more to Clinton than he deserves. I think the press has been harder on him than other presidents within my memory (and I’m 47). I think that if anyone was lucky it was Reagan. There was at least as much reason for impeaching him as there was for Clinton. Furthermore, the harm that Reagan did to the American economy is still generally unacknowledged.

13

The jury is still out on Clinton’s legacy. Will it be Monica and being the second President to be Impeached that he is remembered for? I think it will be that and, in the short run, and forgotten, how he lowered the dignity of the Office of President.

Look to New York and Hillary’s run for the Senate for some answers on how deep the nations Clinton-fatigue is. I think that will be the measuring stick.

A thought, notice how we say “the Clintons” meaning the both of them, as dual Presidents almost? NY will give you the answers.

The truth is generally seen, rarely heard. Gracian.

14

Rousseau writes:

> Plus, aside from reappointing Greenspan, I
> don’t think he can boast any actions taken
> to significantly contribute to our current
> state (aside from coming up with the
> slogan “It’s the Economy, Stu[p]id”–and he
> probably didn’t come up with that by
> himself either).

James Carville came up with the slogan. When has any President ever come up with his own slogans?

15

In my opinion, the legacy of Clinton is the same as for all other presidents. To some degree or another, they all trampled the rights of peaceful honest people. Even Washington, our greatest president in my opinion, had his Whiskey Rebellion.

16

Sorry, jti, but I think future generations will totally ignore Clinton’s impeachment. If you read American history in detail, scandals have surrounded many other presidents (James Garfield, at least I think it was Garfield, had an illegimate son and his opposition’s chant was: “Ma, where’s my pa, pa, pa. In the White House, ha, ha, ha!” Some of the rumored scandals of Harding’s administration make Slick Willie look like a piker), but most of those are not remembered except by historians and well-read people.

The impeachment will be mentioned, but as a footnote more than anything else. It will be treated just as Johnson’s impeachment is treated today – a matter of no great importance that only historians know anything about.

Monica aint’ going to be that important.

The Coyote gnaws …
but he does not swallow.

17

Part of Clinton’s legacy, if he is much remembered, will be:

the massive amount of hate directed at him and his wife before they ever took office,

the charges that he is a redneck and a hick from people who don’t have half his intelligence, let alone his education

his not punching Newt Gingrich in the face

and maybe the extension of a probe into activities that took place before he was President extending to a witch hunt that used illegal wire-taps, coersion, and just plain old hypocritical rants from other adulterers that meant that nothing much got done for months!

Gee, maybe the best legacy would be for the rational members of the GOP to reclaim the “party of Lincoln” from the rabid partisan types.

P.S. If Clinton can’t get any credit for anything good he that happened when he was in office, then no president has any legacy. Post hoc so there.

Bucky

Oh, well. We can always make more killbots.

18

Yeah, I think you have to give Gingrich at least partial credit for that. And I’d bet money that Newt would have been just as smug as Clinton had the Republicans “won” the impeachment issue.

19

Peyote- it was Grover Cleveland. James Garfield was involved in a financial scandal, but the irregularities he was accused of were so small- given the Gilded Age of Grant that they occurred during- it only reinforced how honest a candidate he was.

As for Clinton’s legacy- I don’t think he’s built up anything that will stand as evidence of good leadership or good, forward-thinking policy over the next twenty years. He’s ignored Social Security and Medicare other than to decry any attempts to fix it; much of his accomplished agenda (NAFTA, welfare reform, etc.) was started by and sponsored by the Republicans, and much of his starting agenda (health care, for example) never got anywhere. While the scandals may not have gotten him yet, Lord knows what twenty years of declassified documents and tell-all biographies may bring (and if the 2000 elections end with losses for Gore and Hillary, I’d be willing to bet that it’ll only be a year or two before we see books by former staffers or cabinet members blaming all of the party’s troubles on ‘those damn Clintons’).

The thing I most worry about with Clinton’s legacy is that of Kosovo- that, perhaps, Clinton’s legacy will be the belief by the American people that we can involve ourselves in nasty ethnic civil wars with the expectations of no real losses. That legacy, IMHO, could lead us into the next Vietnam.

JMCJ

This is not a sig.

20

Just to clarify:

In other words, I mostly agree with Peyote Coyote on this one (though I know who Johnson is and why he was impeached. Then again, I’d like to consider myself a historian).

JMCJ

This is not a sig.