Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
David, in fairness, think how many conservatives are now looking back on Bill Clinton with something very much nearing tenderness. Did you catch Andrew Ferguson's extremely unsympathetic review of Dinesh D'Souza's latest? (That's required reading for those who like to stay abreast of intra-conservative cat-fights.) I haven't read the book yet, so I can't say whether Ferguson's hostility to it is merited, but this passage does have some truth to it:
Now it’s 2010, and among his former enemies, Clinton is enjoying a Truman-like renaissance. Even such sweaty anti-Clinton paranoiacs as the investigative journalist Christopher Ruddy and the newspaper proprietor Richard Mellon Scaife have decided he wasn’t so bad after all. It’s almost enough to make you forget the insanity that gripped Clinton’s political opponents. Kemp didn’t know the half of it! Throughout the nineties I heard mainstream Republicans describe the president as a shameless womanizer and a closeted homosexual, a cokehead and a drunk, a wife beater and a wimp, a hick and a Machiavel, a committed pacifist and a reckless militarist who launched unnecessary airstrikes in faraway lands to distract the public’s attention from all of the above.
At gatherings of conservative activists the president was referred to, seriously, as a “Manchurian candidate.” Capitol Hill staffers speculated darkly about the “missing five days” on a trip Clinton had taken to Moscow as a graduate student. Respectable conservatives in the media—William Safire, Robert Novak, Rush Limbaugh—encouraged the suspicion that Clinton’s White House attorney, a manic depressive named Vincent Foster, did not commit suicide, as all available evidence suggested, but had been murdered by parties unknown, to hush up an unspeakable secret from the president’s past.
So what happened? How did the left-wing, coke-snorting Manchurian candidate become the fondly remembered Democrat-you-could-do-business-with—“good old Bill,” in Sean Hannity’s phrase?
(As I read that, I had this vague, itchy thought that somewhere, some long ways back, Ferguson might have given some book I wrote a bad review. I looked on Google but found no evidence of it. I could be absolutely wrong. If I'm right, however, then I'm totally on D'Souza's side, no matter what he actually wrote. Never forgive, never forget, that's my policy. Except that I forget quite a bit, which sort of forces forgiveness on me. I'd hold a lot of grudges if I could only keep track of them. Maybe there's an iPhone app I could download to help me keep track of my vendettas?)
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
If Clinton is enjoying a "revival" it is only in the comparison, like compared to the flogging that sleep deprivation was a piece of cake. It's all torture. The only difference between the two is that Clinton had better political instincts for survival.
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
Better survival instincts? Fool got himself impeached! Hard for a presidency to go more wrong than that, politically.
Aug '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
I beg to differ, Claire. EJHill is right, Obama's massive shortcomings make anyone look better by comparison.
I voted for Clinton twice, and quickly regretted when his critics were proved right. They said Whitewater was a scam, and they were right. They said he was a Don Juan, a habitual liar, and an abuser of women, and they were right. They said Hillary profited from rigged commodities trading, and they were right.
Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas for lying, and can no longer practice law. He was impeached, and only escaped a guilty verdict because Republicans were more worried about Al Gore and the presidential election in 2000 than they were about ethics and the law. They calculated that a Republican victory would be easier if there were no incumbent, correctly, it turns out.
Clinton pardoned convicted billionaire felon Marc Rich after the Clinton Library received millions from Rich's wife.
Worst of all, Clinton refused multiple offers from Sudan to take Osama Bin Laden off their hands, and did almost nothing to punish or check Al Qaeda for multiple bombings that killed hundreds, perhaps thousands. He was too busy having it off with Monica.
How easily we forget!
May '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
An impeachment is an indictment, not a conviction. The Senate was spineless and it probably helped him politically, at least with his base. (A certain section of the GOP base rallied to Nixon for the same reasons.) Furthermore, his political instincts were better than his more base ones.
The Dems paid for rallying around him, though. Had they pushed him out the door when they had the chance Gore would have run as a sitting president in 2000 and probably beat George W. Bush easily.
River's own indictment above is a trip down memory lane. Has anyone ever asked "Dickie" Morris if he has any regrets?
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
Wait. You mean Clinton wasn't a shameless womanizer after all? Boy, does he owe Barack for that Obama-induced-America-crisis-driven amnesia.
I don't see how anyone can get too worked up about "over-the-top" allegations against Clinton when he was demonstrably a felonious perjurer and was credibly accused, by Juanita Broaddrick, of rape. "You better put some ice on that."
Oct '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
How could a milkman with a 23% presidential approval rating in 1951 be so fondly remembered today? Why does Lyndon Johnson's Great Society still bring a tear to the eye of many American people: he who got the US involved in the war in Viet Nam and then refused let us win it- and who destroyed the African-American family with entitlements? Why is JFK, a figure of ridicule until his assassination, who nearly caused nuclear armageddon with his ham-handed handling of Russian/Cuban affairs, revered as one of the gods of 20th century American politics. Why do most Americans actually believe that it was FDR's New Deal and not WWII, that brought the USA out of the Depression?
What you're seeing is the Democrat Bureau of Historical Renovation at work. It has successfully rehabilitated every Democrat president since Wilson, with the arguable exception of Jimmy Carter.
Republicans and conservatives have been active participants. I remember feeling betrayed by Reagan when, in a speech, he included FDR in a very short list of the greatest presidents. Republicans and many conservatives have also officially canonized JFK and Truman.
Jul '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
If Obama stays the course, one may be looking at Jimmy Carter with something approaching tenderness. And as River and David Limbaugh pointed out, Democratic standards of greatness, as exemplified by Clinton, are dismally low.
Edited on Oct 18, 2010 at 6:31amMay '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
Harry was a haberdasher, not a milkman. He was also the official untouchable Democrat in my parents Republican household. My father spent his war years in the North Atlantic on a DE and wanted no part of the invasion on mainland Japan. The decision to drop the bomb elevated Truman in the eyes of a lot of Vets.
May '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
We can acknowledge that the degree to which Clinton was pursued based on his personal flaws was excessive, unwise, and fruitless without rehabilitating him. It was politically stupid and damaging to the republic to carry this to the extreme we did in 1998- we should have let him just cop a plea, accept a censure, and moved on (to coin a phrase, ugh). The worst WH behavior was the demonization of Ken Starr, though, a classy person who just did his job according to the law.
George Will put it well- (paraphrasing) Clinton was not the worst president, but may well have been the worst person to be president.
And the contrast with Obama does make him look good on a policy basis.
Aug '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
EJHill
An impeachment is an indictment, not a conviction. The Senate was spineless and it probably helped him politically, at least with his base....
River's own indictment above is a trip down memory lane. Has anyone ever asked "Dickie" Morris if he has any regrets? · Oct 18 at 6:16am
Dick Morris appears frequently on Bill O'Reilly's show and is very repentant. He knows the Clintons far better than any other critic, and pulls no punches. Morris has gone a long way to make up for his glaring misdeeds.
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
David Limbaugh
Wait. You mean Clinton wasn't a shameless womanizer after all?
At least we're all now persuaded that he wasn't keeping his sexual orientation closeted.
Aug '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
David Limbaugh
Wait. You mean Clinton wasn't a shameless womanizer after all?
At least we're all now persuaded that he wasn't keeping his sexual orientation closeted. · Oct 18 at 7:02am
Uh, Mr President, XYZ. Your orientation is showing.
Jul '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
EJHill
Has anyone ever asked "Dickie" Morris if he has any regrets? · Oct 18 at 6:16am
Yes,
Sean Hannity did. And Dick said he does regret having done what he did.
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
David Limbaugh
Wait. You mean Clinton wasn't a shameless womanizer after all?
At least we're all now persuaded that he wasn't keeping his sexual orientation closeted. · Oct 18 at 7:02am
I don't know who was saying he had a sexual orientation issue. How could anyone think that when he was the manifest womanizer he was? Don't even get it. So I can't take ownership of that charge when I didn't make it.
May '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
The best part of the NYTimesMag piece I thought was the description of the insulated bubble of the BHO presidency, which resembles that of the Carter administration. However many faults owned by Bill Clinton, he was never insulated or delusional. He knew exactly what was going on. He was also a politician first and an ideologue second which, bizarrely, seems to have made him a better president. And while he was always looking out for Number One, that wasn't because he though he was better than everyone else. Finally as I believe even Rob has acknowledged, it seems hard to hate Clinton so much after meeting him. It seems almost the opposite is true of the current president.
Oct '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
EJHill
Harry was a haberdasher, not a milkman. He was also the official untouchable Democrat in my parents Republican household. My father spent his war years in the North Atlantic on a DE and wanted no part of the invasion on mainland Japan. The decision to drop the bomb elevated Truman in the eyes of a lot of Vets. · Oct 18 at 6:37am
Yes, he was a baberdasher. I stand corrected. Dropping the bombs was the only logical thing to do. It did not take any greatness on Truman's part to make a call that any sentient being knew would save a million lives. (Personally: My own father was deployed in the Pacific in the Navy and the decision to drop the bombs may well have saved his life.) But the fact that a Carter-esque president might have made a different decision, says nothing at all about Truman.
May '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
Not so. Many who knew about the bomb, including scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project urged Truman to demonstrate the bomb to Japan and give her opportunity to surrender before it was used militarily.
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
Yeah, you've got to hand it to Clinton: he's the real thing. Meet him, and you're instantly zapped by 6000 volts of charm.
The thing about Clinton was, he needed us. He needs to be loved and adored, he needs to be working the rope line, shaking hands and eating cheeseburgers. That's a character flaw, of course, and an achilles heel, but at least it means, as Trace points out, that he's not a delusional, isolated fantasist, like our current president. He'll do what it takes -- like pivot to the center, like sign welfare reform -- if that's what it takes to keep on being loved. Clinton is a narcissist -- like a lot of presidents -- but he's not a malignant one.
Jun '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
herb briggs
EJHill
My father spent his war years in the North Atlantic on a DE and wanted no part of the invasion on mainland Japan. The decision to drop the bomb elevated Truman in the eyes of a lot of Vets. · Oct 18 at 6:37am
(Personally: My own father was deployed in the Pacific in the Navy and the decision to drop the bombs may well have saved his life.) But the fact that a Carter-esque president might have made a different decision, says nothing at all about Truman.
· Oct 18 at 7:51am
Herb, EJ: Still totally off topic. My father was on DD 587 USS Bell island-hopping toward the Japenese homeland when Nakasaki ended it -- he always had a warm word for Truman.
Jun '10
Re: Conservative Revisionism on Clinton
Rob Long
"Yeah, you've got to hand it to Clinton: he's the real thing. Meet him, and you're instantly zapped by 6000 volts of charm. The thing about Clinton was, he needed us. He needs to be loved and adored."
Spot on, Rob. I can't remember which member of Clinton's inner circle it was, maybe Dick Morris, who referred to Bill as "a seducer." He meant this in the sense that it wasn't enough for staffers to obey and respect him. Bill needed to be loved. If he found someone who was cool to his charm, Bill would be especially solicitous until he earned that person's affection. And you are correct, it's a classic characteristic of a narcissistic personality. As for the malignant part, ask the people in the WH travel office. Or Vince Foster if you see him in the next life. Both Clintons are practiced masters in the politics of personal destruction. There is a cruel streak a mile wide in both of them. We forget this at our peril.