CLINTON AND GINGRICH, TWO PEAS AT OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE SAME POD
In the 2008 slap-stick buddy-comedy "Step Brothers" with comic stars Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, Brennan (Farrell) and Dale (Reilly) are two very similar childish, spoiled, forty-year old men who still live at home with their single parents. They become step-brothers when their parents marry and unite two separate and unlike households into one. The film's often-seen promotional poster features Ferrell and Reilly posing, staring dumbly off into the distance with childish smiles on their faces in a mock brother's-pose for a family picture.
Having seen that silly, smiling-faced Step-Brothers poster, and soon after, watched the Gingrich response to his startling win at the South Carolina primary, I was struck by Newt's similarity in style, bluster, hubris and background to our former president, Bill Clinton. Newt and Bill were Washington DC's Step Brothers!
Looking back at the Clinton Administration from our present perspective from the bottom of an $18 trillion dollar hole created by the Great Recession, one's vision is barred by what today appears to us as a shining mountainous body, around which we can see little else. What looms so large for us today and blots out the true past is the presence of President Bill Clinton's budget surplus, and the remembrance of the fact that at the close of the G H W Bush years we entered into an era of financial growth (a happenstance) and expansion of which Clinton was the beneficiary. Unlike his successor, Clinton (who remains a talented politician) left office with an oft-touted budgetary surplus, an apparently sound economy, and the nation entering into what seemed a low-threat foreign landscape.
But Americans are crazy optimists and continually look back dumbly at our past, so most of us fail to recall (or ignore) the sleazy reality of those years and the deleterious effect Clinton's personal weaknesses as a leader had on the nation and its subsequent history. Forgotten or ignored by our politicians but not lost to our history books are the the facts around his personal foibles which led to an embarrassing and disgraceful impeachment, and that, rather than patriotically and honorably resigning his post (as had Nixon in an earlier time) to hand over the reins of government to Al Gore, his competent Vice President, admittedly one of the most effective and engaged VPs in modern presidential history, he chose to selfishly soldier on, as a weakened and undermined leader, having to make unpalatable deals with an emboldened Republican Party. The ultimate failure of his impeachment, left him in office leading a paralyzed and stunned nation. The episode demoralized the progressives, but stirred the independents and the Republican center and right-wing with renewed vigor and with a great determination to erase the Clinton legacy. It mobilized and radicalized the social conservative movement and led to the (questionable) defeat of Al Gore and the disastrous election of George Bush Jr.. in the following election. Some of the most serious mistakes which were to have severe consequences for our future, could be traced back to Clinton's self-serving, self-centered scandal-plagued administration and the decisions he made at that time. Signing the recall of the Glass-Steagal Act which was one of the main contributory causes of the Great Recession, is just one deed I can not forgive him for.
If your memory does not go that far back, recall that President Clinton was the first president ever to be impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance. Among his other "firsts" was that he was first to be sued for sexual harassment (and second to be accused of rape), and first to have his own legal defense fund, first to rent out the Lincoln bedroom, first to be held in contempt of court, and the first president to be disbarred from a state court and from the US Supreme Court. He also has the distinction of having the most number of friends and associates who had to take guilty pleas, and had the most number of cabinet officials of any past president to have been incarcerated for criminality. The administration was scarred by the fact that even the First lady was the subject of a criminal investigation. And as well, the administration was plagued by massive illegal-campaign-contributions cases. I bring up this unpleasant history to remind my readers of what can occur when a president has a "character issue" or a weak or non-existent moral compass, combined with much to learn about self discipline.
Circumstances now taking place in the Republican primaries lead one to look at the personal characters of some of those who have recently risen to prominence. One of these is a Clinton "step brother", former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are two similar, childish, undisciplined, men, and like step-brothers Brennan and Dale their only differences are that they arise from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Both are erratic, arrogant, self-serving and based on their histories, patently unethical. These two men, are so similar, but from different political philosophies, they could have been the subjects of the Washington-edition of a Hollywood, remake of a comedy of manners called the "step brothers of politics".
Both men were born in the 1940s to struggling young women in out-of-the-way rural locations. Both mothers remarried and their young boys were raised by step-fathers whose names they assumed. Both were highly intelligent, talented and driven to succeed at all costs. Both seem to have had early discipline problems and lacked a dominant or prominent male figure in their early lives. Gingrich attended Emory, went on to graduate school at Tulane where he majored in history. Both Clinton and Gingrich failed to serve in the Vietnam war. Clinton was pilloried during his presidential campaign for the fact that he misled his draft board to obtain a deferment. Gingrich continued to take student deferments which kept him out of service, but did not volunteer to enlist. His motives, unlike Clinton's, were never questioned. Gingrich taught for some years, then was attracted to politics where he was elected to the House in 1978. Clinton went to University where he was a scholar and musician. Clinton finished his law degree at Yale. Both men entered politics, in the south, Gingrich from Georgia, Clinton from Arkansas. Both men had unsavory reputations as skirt chasers, which grew and intensified as their political power and opportunities for such behavior increased. Clinton was infamous for multiple affairs and long-term mistresses, while Gingrich was excoriated for extra-marital affairs and multiple marriages. Clinton at the height of his political power, was impeached as the result of an in-oval-office affair with a young female intern and for lying and obstruction of justice related to the investigation. Gingrich eventually reached the pinnacle of his career as Speaker of the House, from which, after four years, he was impeached for multiple ethical violations. He was assessed hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines as a results of his ethical lapses.
Politically, both men could not be defined by their party affiliations. Clinton was a nominal Democrat but often practiced what he termed "triangulation"which found him in many instances more in tune with the Republicans than with his own party. Gingrich was a political amoeba constantly changing form and shape and political associations. Gingrich altered his religious affiliation from Baptist to Lutheran, and finally to Catholic. Both men could be characterized as having greater interest in their own well- being and career advancement than concern for that of the public good to which they had taken an oath.
And finally' when these two men found themselves out of office, both jumped into the revolving door of Washington's main business of making big money, by selling one's past contacts and connections to the highest bidder doing business in Washington. Both used their government knowledge and associations (and as a former President, Clinton used his foreign as well as Washington connections) to put themselves into the 1% income income-net wealth category by becoming "consultants and influence peddlers" in Washington. Both men wound up as multi-millionaires.
Thankfully, Clinton's history is in the nation's past. As a gravelly-voiced white-haired senior, and busy-body private citizen, this world- investment maven can not do our political system any more harm.
But as for Newt, Clinton's Republican-family "step brother"and mirror image, he is running for office now, and presents a grave threat to the union. We must force ourselves to recall what it was like to have an undisciplined, unstable, and erratic president in office. The history is there for us to examine. The fear is that Clinton's "step brother" ensconced within the White House and mantled with the political clout and the power of the Presidency, but with Clintonian character flaws and "brotherly" behavior, could impose a harrowing eight years on the nation which would make the flawed and scandal-ridden Clinton administration look like a Sunday school. That image is a frightening one that should be avoided.
Newt, himself, as an historian, would affirm that we should learn form our past and not ignore it.
Let's not go there.
rjk
No comments:
Post a Comment