This volume appears exactly one year after Bill Clinton took office as the 42nd President of the United States. The reader may rightly ask what justifies our quick analysis? After all, it certainly can be argued that whatever the Clinton presidency does, and the manner in which it ends up accounting for itself, will not be fully clear until the end of his term, if then. But while many details will be added to the story during the next three years, the nature of Mr. Clinton's campaign and his first year in office is such that citizens are justified in coming to some solid conclusions now about the new regime and its purposes.
No one was surprised that this presidency did not have a honeymoon period, or that none was requested. Mr. Clinton's theme during the campaign was change, and he invited us to scrutinize him from the first days on. He encouraged us to expect immediate change; the executive-legislative gridlock would be broken. He claimed that this gridlock had stymied the nation for twelve years, and the he was more than ready to get the country moving again as soon as he was in the driver's seat. We were led to believe that once the deadlock was over, as a matter of fact and political affiliation, the federal government would once again become the well-oiled machine some think it should always be and the nation would be on the move again. The consequence of his victory would be fast change, a swift attack on the many ills of our society, with the full cooperation of the Democrats in Congress.
This is not to say, however, that the new president had a mandate for change. He was elected with only 43 percent of the national vote, having won a majority of the votes in only two states (Arkansas gave him 53.7 percent while New York allowed him 50.1 percent.) Further, he won a smaller percentage of the votes in their respective states than did all Democratic senators elected in 1992 and all but four House Democrats in their districts. He couldn't very well contend that he had a mandate, national or local, and certainly could not argue that victorious Democratic Congressmen came in on his coattails.
Added to these facts was the aggravation of the Democratic losses in important state and local elections during Mr. Clinton's' first year. The Democrats lost the U.S. Senate runoff election in Georgia; they lost the special Senate election in Texas; they lost the governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey, and a lieutenant governor's race in Arkansas; and for the first time in a generation Republicans were elected as mayors of Los Angeles and New York. The meaning of these losses was obvious to all, and admitted by the candid. These convulsions in the body politic showed that voters had reconsidered their earlier, if limited, enthusiasm for the Democrats. Stated less charitably, they were manifestations of the people's doubt about Clinton's capacities to govern. Because of his attempt at a perpetual campaign, and the many blunders of the first six months, some began to think that he was a small man living in a large house and that he was only there by mishap.
Although he did not receive a ringing mandate, the new president grabbed the steering wheel of the government firmly. On the night of his election victory he said: "This election is a clarion call for our country to face the challenges of the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the next century." He added, even more philosophically: "We need more than new laws, new promises or new programs. We need a new spirit of community, a sense that we're all in this together." After the vote Clinton continued to refer to his theme of change. He was head of the clean-up crew that would sweep out the philosophies and policies of the selfish, all-too-awful twelve years of Reaganism. Even after the campaign was over he continued to show the utmost contempt and even ridicule of those Republican years. He was certain that his time had come.
Some argued that the new president was an old liberal anxious to add more horsepower to the machine built by Franklin D. Roosevelt. But Mr. Clinton claimed to be an entirely new Democrat. His association with the Democratic Leadership Council was useful; the DLC was interested in Democrats winning elections by applying conservative means to liberal ends. Clinton seemed to have clearer purposes and a more effervescent attitude than his most recent Democratic predecessors had when they ran unsuccessfully for the same office. Since this was a new model Democrat, he didn't have Democratic heroes to whom he could (publicly) appeal in matters of substance—except perhaps Jefferson—although that seemed contrived-and perhaps that explains his many favorable references to Lincoln. But Clinton clearly had a hero in matters of style and character: John F. Kennedy. His emphasis on the new generation taking charge clearly alluded to the Kennedy myth of dynamism and change harkening to the future. But upon closer examination it became increasingly obvious that he was by no means disowning the liberal vision of the large bureaucratic state, with its many entitlement programs.
This Democrat sui generis would emphasize economic growth rather than redistribution of the wealth that had already been created by the rational and industrious. Although he would increase the taxes on the very rich (who had so selfishly profited during the bad years) he would not do so on the middle class, whom he was keen on representing and benefitting. He would also reduce the deficit and the debt, and still increase spending on new programs. He would create more and better jobs. He was for free trade and in an artful way tied together his domestic agenda for change with the newly competitive international environment. He was also deeply concerned about everyone's security and health, as well as that of the environment and thereby revealed to all that he was a caring leader who knew the true basis of community. He said that the military should remain strong and, despite his personal history, indicated that he would be willing to use it—in Bosnia, for example, where he accused Bush of being fainthearted. He would attack the problem of welfare by explaining that the recipients of government largess also had obligations to the good-hearted community of which they are a part. He would overcome the problem of racial divisiveness by replicating the appearance of America in his cabinet through group representation.
Much has been said about Clinton (and Gore) being of the sixties generation, and it is true that his personal philosophy seems to have been deeply affected by the sixties' transvaluation of values. His health care proposal and his wife's pleas for a "politics of meaning" perhaps most clearly reveal the connection between New Deal liberalism and sixties radicalism. He would do nothing less than reinvent government, if not human nature itself. He would practice a kind of politics of joy and a politics of good intentions that would be mystically elevated into the politics of meaning.
That Clinton's first six moths in office were nearly catastrophic may be a reflection of both fundamental problems in his ends and means, and his inability to please the various hungry factions within the Democratic Party. His artful tergiversations on a number of issues—not excluding taxes, family values, and foreign policy—may be nothing more than a clear indication that this president is a willing learner. (We are reminded it took Jimmy Carter three years of being president before he came to realize, by his own admission, the true nature of Soviet Communism.) On the other hand, they may be signals that reflect on his political insubstantiality and inconstancy, that he may be no surer—to use Coriolanus' estimate of the Roman people—"than is the coal of fire upon the ice, or hailstorm in the sun." Either way, the self-absorbed factions within Democratic Party—from the homosexual lobby to the DLC to the labor unions—are in a spirited mood, and the president cannot ignore their demands without paying a heavy price. The consequences of the Clinton victory are becoming manifest, and those of us interested in tactical and strategic skirmishes may have a lot to look forward to; the next three years of his administration will not be sound and fury signifying nothing. May we live in interesting times!
The fourteen essays in this volume argue that many of the core elements of the Clinton regime have been revealed, and that we can begin to see the consequences of this new kind of politics. Although critical, they take the Clinton phenomenon in American politics seriously. They give the president credit for his intelligence and determination. No one underestimates his abilities or doubts the seriousness of his purposes. His speeches and actions are taken as they are offered. There is an attempt to put them in a historical context, as well as offer the necessary theoretical interpretation of their essence.
Our authors seek to shed light on the meaning of the Clinton presidency for the sake of illuminating the deliberations and choices facing the citizens of America. In this way we hope be of use to our fellow citizens on whose capacity for self-government the future of the Republic depends.
December 8, 1993
Peter W. Schramm
Ashland, Ohio
