Looking for some projections from historically savvy dopers as to how Bill Clinton will be judged in the historical long view. Good, bad or indifferent? How have Presidents been judged historically vs the attitudes about them in their own time?
Will his personal indiscretions fade away and the legacy of his initatives remain to be judged on their own merits, or or will the tar of his often less than stellar personal behavior stick with him because of the impact it had on his effectiveness as a President?
Note: I’m really looking for kind of a detached, wide angle view from dopers familar with the criteria by which Presidents are judged historically regarding Clinton’s legacy.
Well, considering we don’t know everything that went on in the Clinton Administration, we can’t really say for sure. In addition, the full effects of his policies may not come into play for several more years.
Now then, IMHO, I think that on a scale of 1-10, Clinton will be judged a 5-6. He was certainly above average in terms of accomplishments, but he also suffered many defeats. Universal health care, etc. If he was just being judged on his domestic policy, I think that Clinton would be rated much higher as he was able to often get Congress to go along with him there and pass specific legislation. Maybe he gets as much as an 7 or an 8 there. But his ineffectiveness in foreign affairs hurts him. While he had some successes, again, he often suffered defeats. For instance, he gets a plus for getting NAFTA ratified and getting troops into the Balkans, but gets points deducted for having several other treaties failed to be ratified and implemented, like Kyoto. Part of being president is getting this stuff done, even if the Congress doesn’t want to go along. You compromise and take middle ground positions.
I recognize that he had to deal with a Congress that was slightly hostile to him and that often undercut his policies and sometimes did stupid things. But those are the things that a president has to deal with and part of the rankings has to do with how well a president guides Congress to do what he wants, so tough beans.
So in my detached, wide angle view, Clinton gets a rating of “not too shabby.”
I think Neurotik is probably right. I don’t think his indiscretions will relegate him to the dustbin of history, but I don’t think he necessarily did anything that will make historians yell “Wow!” But it’s always hard to predict these kinds of things.
The Clinton Administration had remarkably few accomplishments.
NAFTA – that was good, but it wasn’t earth-shaking. Furthermore it was just a continuation of a free trade policy promoted by Reagan and Bush before him, so he must share the credit.
Balkans intervention – that was good, but peripheral.
And I can’t think of any others.
Compare this to, say, Harry Truman, who started the Containment policy, fought the Communists in Korea, integrated the army, etc. Or Eisenhower, who ended the Korean War, maintained Containment in some very dicy foreign policy struggles, initiated the interstate highway system, and took significant civil rights actions.
Compare to W, who in just two years passed a big tax cut, won a war in Afghanistan, got Congress to pass the biggest reorganization of government in 50 year, rallied the world to fight al Qaeda, and got the UN to take seriously the disarmament of Saddam Hussein.
Clinton will be remembered as a ‘minor’ president, IMO. And I didn’t think he was all that bad, myself. But ‘Great’ presidents are remembered as great either because they presided over great changes on society, or had a great effect on the people.
One hundred years from now, Clinton’s presidency is going to be remembered chiefly as a lull between the cold war and the war on terror. There were no grand societal changes, no great programs you can point to, etc.
In short, Clinton won’t be remembered because there will be no reason to remember him, once you get some time and distance between the continual ongoing partisan positioning of the public.
I think Clinton will be remembered for an excellent record of pragmatic economic policy, easily the best in several decades.
This includes:
1)deficit reduction: Clinton retreated on his big spending plans , increased taxes and restricted defence spending. As a result deficits declined , private investment was less crowded out, long-run bondrates fell and economic growth picked up.
2)Free trade: NAFTA and WTO: Clinton showed great courage here and defied the special interests in his own party. Contrast that to Bush who despite his free-trade rhetoric caved pretty quickly to the steel lobby.
3)Making work pay: Part of this was welfare reform which was more a GOP initiative. Still Clinton did sign the bill and he did raise the issue in the 92 election. But more important were the initiatives like the Earned Income Tax Credit which supported low-income working families thus increasing the incentive to work.
4)International financial crisis management: The jury is out on this one and there are critics from both the left and the right. Still the Mexican bailout likely prevented its economy from going into depression and at least major long-run disaster was avoided in East Asia.
Looking for a detached view, eh? I don’t think that would be easy this early. May be if we wait 15-20 more years, we’ll get a better idea. Besides, to some, NAFTA, the Balkan intervention and even the relative peace in the Middle East were “major” successes, and to some, they were not. Regards George W., the success of the tax cut is still debatable unless you think passing it in itself is a success, in which case, every Government would have many successes! And, again, while the military campaign in Afghanistan was remarkably fast and efficient, its effectiveness is still unknown. And, rallying the world to fight Al-Qaeda… well, again. IMO, it is still somewhat early to pass strong judgements on Clinton’s work, and way too early to do the same with George W. But, I agree with Sam that Clinton will be remembered as a “minor” president for the reasons he mentions, albeit amongst the most charismatic ones in recent memory.
It is strange that the impact of a president is usually associated with social (domestic and international) step changes that happen during his(her?) presidency or that were caused by his/her policies. How would a time of economic stability and growth be viewed?
Yes, Neurotik, I would give him about a 6, maybe as high as 7, certainly no higher.
While I acknowledge that Congress deserves a lot of credit for balancing the budget for the first time since 1969, it strikes me as unfair to deny Clinton ANY credit for same. I’m sure all of us remember the famous bet Rush Limbaugh proposed in 1993: that four years later:
i) the stock market would be lower;
ii) the deficit would be higher;
iii) interest rates would be higher; and
iv) unemployment would be higher.
None of these things were true four years later. So it needs to be acknowledged that Clinton could have done worse fiscally.
Also, would it be correct to say that Clinton’s government did well in the war against domestic terrorism? I know Al-Qaeda makes those guys look like pikers, but they were pretty scary at the time.
Note that the 1993 budget received not a single Republican vote in the Senate, although they and their cheerleaders have never been shy about claiming credit for it.
An extended period of peace and prosperity is not too bad a legacy, and he had a clear hand in much of it. Presidents who serve during those get remembered fondly, and debates about their contributions to those situations get ignored. The term “greatness” gets reserved, in current assessments, for leaders who served during wartime, but that standard should and may change in the future.
But there will be an undertow that he didn’t aspire to sufficient greatness, or inspire any true visions, of what could be accomplished to lock in peace and prosperity. He had the power to do much more, but either chose or was forced to choose to compromise for the sake of appeasing the unappeasable haters in the opposition. They have no chance that I can see of attaining redemption in future history books - the impeachment story just has no way of getting a reaction other than “What the hell were those people thinking?”
Part of the problem with filing his term under “extended peace and prosperity” is that just around the end of his term, the economic bubble burst and Al-Qaeda were preparing for a virulent attack on domestic soil. It would be myopic to only look at the eight years and judge his presidency.
I don’t think Clinton will stand out. A hundred years from now, he’ll be one of those Presidents people are always forgetting about. He’s not an FDR, not a Lincoln, not a Washington. Nothing earth shattering, and though the impeachment rukus will always be a curiosity, it will be overshadowed by Nixon in any summary of the major Presidential scandals of last century.
No, presidents who serve during periods like this are forgotten. History is about the clash of ideas, the progress of man, and conflict. Leaders who are remembered are the ones who preside over difficult times, and/or who seriously advance the country. Clinton did neither.
Don’t confuse the debate. We’re not asking if Clinton was a good President - we’re asking how he will be remembered.
Look at other Presidents who presided over times of relative peace and prosperity. The peaceful period before WWI: William Taft. But everyone will remember Woodrow Wilson, because he was there for WWI. How about the Roaring Twenties? Coolidge and Harding. But everyone remembers FDR, who presided over the Great Depression and WWII. Same with Truman. The peaceful 50’s? Eisenhower, who will be remembered far more for being the Supreme Allied Commander in WWII than for being President.
The start of the post-cold war period? George Bush I and Clinton. Bush might be remembered now because his son is also a president, which makes him stand out. If Bush II hadn’t been elected, George Bush would have been George Who? in 100 years.
By this standard, Clinton will probably be remembered most for the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. That’s certainly not fair, but that’s the way it goes.
I agree, but because the so-called outstanding presidents, as listed about, were wartime. Personally I consider Woodrow Wilson the all time worst president, but being wartime, and given that we won, most will think he must have been good.
As far as how Mr. Clinton will be viewed by the historical profession, remember that we-tooism doesn’t sell books, or even get tenure. So opinion will continue to be all over the map.
Not at all. I don’t have much to say about him either way. When you said “remembered fondly” I sort of assumed you meant remembered in a positive light, rather than in the neutral light in which I think most people remember (or more likely, dont) him.
I think you all know that I’m not a big Clinton supporter, but I try to at least be intellectually honest. Realistically, Clinton wasn’t a bad President, his personal peccadilloes notwithstanding.
However, I would never associate Clinton with “peace”.
Examples:
1993: 1st WTC bombing
1993: Waco
1993: Battle of Mogadishu
1995: Oklahoma City bombing
1995: Khobar Towers bombing
1998: USS Cole bombing
1998: The Embassy bombings
Please understand that I’m not associating Clinton directly with these events. All I’m saying is that during his administration large scale terrorism either became more of an issue due to the press coverage than it was before, or there was a genuine jump in major terrorist acts.
His actions in response to those acts, however, were somewhat less than stellar, in my opinion. Popping off a few Tomahawks in hopes of getting Osama was a very weak response, for instance.
Anyway, what we have above is a list of newsworthy events that hardly fit the definition of peace, so that claim is kinda weak, in my opinion.