Bill Clinton: Driving the GOP to Extremes

Former US President Bill Clinton speaks at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) on September 24, 2013 in New York.
National Journal
Michael Hirsh
See more stories about...
Michael Hirsh
Sept. 30, 2013, 9:12 p.m.

Bill Clin­ton didn’t set out to swipe the Re­pub­lic­ans’ tra­di­tion­al agenda and send the GOP down the road to rad­ic­al­iz­a­tion. Nor did the 42nd pres­id­ent set out to po­lar­ize the coun­try. But these were the un­in­ten­ded ef­fects of his polit­ic­al strategies — as bril­liant as they were in get­ting him elec­ted.

Clin­ton’s pre­ferred course would have been to gov­ern as a warm-hearted Demo­crat­ic pop­u­list like his hero, Frank­lin Delano Roosevelt, unit­ing the coun­try be­hind an agenda of “bold, per­sist­ent ex­per­i­ment­a­tion” (an FDR phrase Clin­ton used in his first in­aug­ur­al speech), long-time Clin­ton ac­quaint­ances have said. Soon after tak­ing of­fice Clin­ton laid a wreath at Hyde Park, placed an icon­ic bust of FDR in the Oval Of­fice and, in policy terms, one White House of­fi­cial later re­called, “talked far more about Roosevelt than JFK” (the pres­id­ent with whom, dur­ing the 1992 cam­paign, he’d hoped voters would identi­fy him).


But Clin­ton was also the sav­vi­est politi­cian of his gen­er­a­tion, and by the early ‘90s he saw it was no longer feas­ible to run or gov­ern as a tra­di­tion­al New Deal Demo­crat. Ron­ald Re­agan had changed the terms of the de­bate. Clin­ton cham­pioned the Demo­crat­ic Lead­er­ship Coun­cil, which was the party’s con­ces­sion to the emer­ging zeit­geist: “mar­ket-based solu­tions” and de­fer­ence to smal­ler gov­ern­ment. Nor was it Clin­ton’s fault that, by the time he ran for pres­id­ent, the “Re­agan Re­volu­tion” had only gone half way. It de­reg­u­lated and freed up the eco­nomy to mar­ket forces, but Re­agan’s fal­ter­ing at­tach­ment to the the­ory of sup­ply-side eco­nom­ics — his re­luct­ance to cut gov­ern­ment spend­ing at the same time as he cut taxes, on the idea that lower taxes would un­leash more prosper­ity — had left be­hind a fisc­al dis­aster: A gov­ern­ment that was just as big, but badly un­der­fun­ded. His eco­nom­ic ad­visors counseled that he had to tackle the de­fi­cit first, tra­di­tion­ally a Re­pub­lic­an con­cern.

And so the stage was set for a polit­ic­al hi­jack­ing: bit by bit, piece by piece, “tri­an­gu­lat­ing” his way to­ward the cen­ter once oc­cu­pied by main­stream Re­pub­lic­ans, Clin­ton re­made the Demo­crat­ic Party in the im­age of the old GOP. In an in­ter­view a few years ago, his long-time friend and first chief of staff, Thomas “Mack” McLarty, re­called the de­cis­ive mo­ment two weeks be­fore the in­aug­ur­a­tion at a big eco­nom­ic gath­er­ing Clin­ton held in Little Rock to ful­fill his cam­paign prom­ise of “put­ting people first.” “Bob Ru­bin [who would go on to be­come dir­ect­or of Clin­ton’s Na­tion­al Eco­nom­ic Coun­cil and then Treas­ury sec­ret­ary] called me from Wash­ing­ton that morn­ing,” McLarty re­called. “It re­minded me of the Hou­s­ton- NASA thing. He said, ‘Mac, we’ve got a prob­lem.’ And I said, ‘What’s the prob­lem?’ He said, ‘The de­fi­cit is con­sid­er­ably lar­ger than we thought it was go­ing to be.’ And what that really meant was the be­gin­ning of the hard choices. The middle class tax cut he had prom­ised, and some of the pro­grams that our more tra­di­tion­al Demo­crats had felt were es­sen­tial.”

Clin­ton ul­ti­mately tackled the de­fi­cit, the bond mar­ket re­war­ded him and the eco­nomy began to boom. And like Wal­ter White get­ting lured deep­er and deep­er in­to the meth trade in “Break­ing Bad,” Clin­ton found him­self en­ticed in­to oth­er parts of the GOP agenda like “work­fare” re­form and cham­pi­on­ing NAF­TA. He hired Dav­id Ger­gen, who had been an ad­visor to three Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ents. He began us­ing the Re­aganesque phrase, “The era of big gov­ern­ment is over.” Clin­ton him­self be­came un­com­fort­ably aware of his trans­form­a­tion, telling his aides sar­castic­ally (ac­cord­ing to Bob Wood­ward in The Agenda): “We’re Eis­en­hower Re­pub­lic­ans here, and we’re fight­ing the Re­agan Re­pub­lic­ans. We stand for lower taxes and free trade and the bond mar­ket. Isn’t that great?”

At the same time as he drove them right­ward , Clin­ton ali­en­ated Re­pub­lic­ans with his po­lar­iz­ing tac­tics. His 1993 budget passed both the House and the Sen­ate without a single Re­pub­lic­an vote. The same deep par­tis­an split oc­curred over his plans to raise top mar­gin­al tax rates in or­der to cut the de­fi­cit. That lead to the “Con­tract with Amer­ica” Gin­grich re­volu­tion and the takeover of the House in 1994, the pre­curs­or to the shock that an­oth­er po­lar­iz­ing cent­rist Demo­crat, Barack Obama, would face in 2010. Un­der Ru­bin’s guid­ance, Clin­ton’s in­creas­ing co­zi­ness with Wall Street also be­queathed a grow­ing pop­u­list an­ger that led to a split­ting off of the liber­tari­an right from the GOP and of the pro­gress­ive left from the Demo­crat­ic Party, fur­ther break­ing down the con­sensus in Wash­ing­ton. This be­came es­pe­cially acute after many of the de­reg­u­lat­ory fin­an­cial policies that began dur­ing the Clin­ton years, such as the re­peal of the Glass-Steagall law sep­ar­at­ing fed­er­ally sponsored com­mer­cial bank­ing from ris­ki­er in­vest­ment bank­ing, led dir­ectly to the fin­an­cial crash of 2008 and gi­ant Wall Street bail­outs.

The polit­ic­al dy­nam­ics that un­der­lay the gov­ern­ment shut­down fight of 1994-95 gave the best evid­ence of the ever-right­ward shift of the polit­ics of Wash­ing­ton. Gin­grich, the gran­di­ose new Speak­er who saw him­self as an his­tor­ic trans­form­a­tion­al fig­ure, viewed the GOP takeover of the House as a man­date for drastic cuts in spend­ing and a bal­anced budget. Clin­ton, still tri­an­gu­lat­ing, ini­tially showed flex­ib­il­ity in budget ne­go­ti­ations. That only made Gin­grich more self-con­fid­ent that he could get his way. As the budget fight con­tin­ued, Gin­grich in­sisted on his en­tire pro­gram, in­clud­ing tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts in Medi­care. After he hin­ted on “This Week with Dav­id Brinkley” that as speak­er he might re­fuse to raise the debt lim­it in April 1995, the polit­ic­al struggle erup­ted in­to open war. Gin­grich pub­licly threatened that the U.S. might have to de­fault on its debt for the first time in its his­tory. Even­tu­ally the gov­ern­ment shut down, lead­ing to bit­ter­ness and fin­ger-point­ing on both sides.

And so, by the time Clin­ton cheated on First Lady Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton with a White House in­tern named Mon­ica Lew­in­sky and then lied about it, it was no sur­prise that his glee­ful GOP foes re­spon­ded with im­peach­ment, fur­ther po­lar­iz­ing the coun­try. No less a GOP stal­wart than Alan Green­span would later write in his mem­oir: “I think Bill Clin­ton was the best Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ent we’ve had in a while.” But rather than ush­er­ing in a new era of bi­par­tis­an­ship, Clin­ton’s move to the middle drove the GOP farther to the right and per­man­ently broke the del­ic­ate polit­ic­al mech­an­ism of com­prom­ise.

Who do you think broke Wash­ing­ton? Tell us here.

What We're Following See More »
CNN/ORC
Clinton Ahead by 13 in Early Going
15 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"As Donald Trump captures the mantle of presumptive Republican nominee, a new poll finds he begins his general election campaign well behind Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. The new CNN/ORC Poll, completed ahead of Trump's victory last night, found Clinton leads 54% to 41%, a 13-point edge over the New York businessman, her largest lead since last July. Clinton is also more trusted than Trump on many issues voters rank as critically important, with one big exception. By a 50% to 45% margin, voters say Trump would do a better job handling the economy than Clinton would."

Source:
ACCEPT OR RESIST?
Wall Street Journal, Kristol Reflect Schism on the Right
23 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

In an editorial, the Wall Street Journal sets out to relieve conservatives of the temptation to back a third-party candidate over Donald Trump. "The thought is more tempting this year than most, but it’s still hard to see how this would accomplish more than electing Hillary Clinton and muddling the message from a Trump defeat. ... The usual presidential result is that the party that splinters hands the election to the other, more united party." But in the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol is having none of it: "Serious people, including serious conservatives, cannot acquiesce in Donald Trump as their candidate. ... Donald Trump should not be president of the United States. The Wall Street Journal cannot bring itself to say that. We can say it, we do say it, and we are proud to act accordingly."

NOT WELL FOR THE GOP
The Trump Triumph: How’s It Playing?
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
  • Nate Cohn, New York Times: "There have been 10-point shifts over the general election season before, even if it’s uncommon. But there isn’t much of a precedent for huge swings in races with candidates as well known as Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton. A majority of Americans may not like her, but they say they’re scared of him."
  • Roger Simon, PJ Media: "He is particularly fortunate that his opposition, Hillary Clinton, besides still being under threat of indictment and still not having defeated Bernie Sanders (go figure), is a truly uninspiring, almost soporific, figure. ... She's not a star. Trump is. All attention will be on him in the general election. The primaries have shown us what an advantage that is. What that means for American politics may not all be good, but it's true."
  • The editors, The Washington Examiner: "At the very least, Trump owes it to the country he boasts he will 'make great again' to try to demonstrate some seriousness about the office he seeks. He owes this even to those who will never consider voting for him. He can start by swearing off grand displays of aggressive and apparently deliberate ignorance. This is not too much to ask."
FOLLOWS UNITEDHEALTH
Humana Will Also Exit Obamacare Exchanges
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

Humana announced it plans to "exit certain statewide individual markets and products 'both on and off [Obamacare] exchange,' the insurer said in its financial results released Monday." The company also said price hikes may be forthcoming, "commensurate with anticipated levels of risk by state." Its individual-market enrollment was down 21% in the first quarter from a year ago.

Source:
‘PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE’
Priebus Asks Party to Unite Behind Trump
13 hours ago
THE LATEST
×