NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Clinton, Bush polarize politics of our timeWASHINGTON -- It was somehow fitting that Bill Clinton's explanation for the Monica Lewinsky affair ("Because I could") would steal tabloid headlines last Thursday from the 9/11 Commission's refutation of George W. Bush's claim of a close relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
With a book tour starting today, expect a long spool of tortured self-examination from Clinton, while Bush, of course, plants his cowboy boots in the muck and insists that Iraq worked with Al Qaeda because he says so. Clinton and Bush are the two poles (one shaky, one brittle) in the political pathology that has gripped the country over the last decade. The differences between the two go well beyond personality or morality, extending all the way to their visions for the United States and its relationship to the world. While many readers await today's release of Clinton's memoirs to see how the big guy tries to weasel his way out of personal scandals, others feel a pang imagining how different the world would be had Clinton not been barred from a third term. John F. Kerry may be the Democrats' hope of the moment, but Clinton provides the more tangible contrast with Bush, the one depicted in former national security aide Richard A. Clarke's best-selling book and captured in the public imagination: Clinton's cramming of information vs. the corporate style that shields Bush from all but a few distilled policy options; Clinton's emphasis on global codependence vs. Bush's insistence on US primacy; Clinton's desire to be liked by everyone vs. Bush's tendency to define himself against enemies. Just a few months ago, the Democrats were debating a change that might have freed the country from the stranglehold of the Clinton-Bush dynamic. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean proposed to answer Bush on his own terms, with a clear, simple refutation of Bush's policies. Dean believed the war in Iraq was a mistake from the start, almost ludicrous in that it knocked out the Mideast regime that was least likely to collaborate with Al Qaeda and drained hundreds of thousands of troops from the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The Bush tax cuts, Dean argued, were a failure because they cost Americans more on the local level to compensate for lost services, while the federal deficit sent jitters through the financial markets. But the party, in the end, opted for a more Clintonian strategy, zeroing in on moderate voters and wooing them like a suitor with a box of chocolates. Kerry, who had fired off a few pellets of Dean-like outrage during the primaries, put his guns back in their holsters and recruited a team of Clinton veterans to remake his economic and foreign policies. Two weeks ago, Clinton reportedly advised Kerry to campaign as though Iraq was stable, the economy was going great guns, and bin Laden was dead -- in other words, avoiding all possible flash points and concentrating on selling himself. Kerry, to all appearances, doesn't have the political dexterity (or shamelessness) to pull that off, and may remember that Clinton's overly strategic approach was what drove some voters away from the Democrats in the first place. Meanwhile, the Republicans await the onslaught of publicity surrounding Clinton's book with equanimity: They figure that Clinton's charm can't be transferred to Kerry, but his reputation for trimming the truth can be. Moreover, as White House role models go, the recently sanctified Ronald Reagan goes over far better than Clinton. GOP leaders figure that a celestial Reagan-Bush linkage offers more appeal to voters than a real-world melding of Clinton and Kerry. Bush jumped in the polls during the weeks surrounding Reagan's funeral. A combination of events made it a period of celebration of the presidency itself: the powerful imagery of the D-day anniversary; the G-8 summit; the 80th birthday of the president's parachute-jumping father; a weirdly collegial unveiling by Bush of the White House portraits of Bill and Hillary Clinton, displaying a kind, members-only solidarity in the presidential fraternity. But Bush's bump in the polls wasn't dramatic, and there's no evidence that voters are buying the central thesis of the Bush-Reagan link, repeated with drumbeat regularity by the president himself: that both men governed by a few core principles. This is the supposed point of departure with Clinton and Kerry, who twist themselves around trying to please everyone. The problem, which voters with long memories can readily perceive, is that Reagan's example is no more relevant to assessing Bush than Clinton's is for Kerry. Reagan spent much of his time explaining and evoking the ideals that guided his presidency, which bought him the credibility to shift gears when necessary. Reagan gave his blessing to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at a crucial moment when most of the US right wing was still skeptical. Reagan also cut popular programs and acceded to tax increases to reduce the deficit. Bush's principles are asserted, not explained, often through gritted teeth. It's the opposite of Reagan's dulcet persuasion. Bush governs as though he gains strength through opposition -- the "bring 'em on" school of combat. Like Kerry, Bush might do well to acknowledge the limits of the politics of association, and make his own best case for himself.
Peter S. Canellos can be reached at canellos@globe.com. © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
