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 »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×