In the wake of An Inconvient Truth, and in anticipation of the coming presidential cycle, we think back about the legacy of the Clinton Adminstration and President Clinton and Vice-President Gore.
I think that many of us conclude that while they made constructive contributions to the general welfare, they were not and are not outstanding, transformational, issues oriented leaders. And this problem weighs on us today.
(more)
There are many positive achievements of the Clinton Administration. And the global popularity of President Clinton is certainly one of them. But there are many substantive failures. Where was the country on Rwanda, for example? And where has Mr. Clinton been on this problem since he left office? Increasingly, I am convinced that Mr. Clinton is in fact a good spokesperson for the politics and policies of the DLC - Republican-lite, pro-business, so-called "centrist". He is an extraordinary political personality - the way Elvis had a great voice. But a leader? Maybe not.
Certainly we are thrilled with the personal commitment of Vice President Gore to the pressing global environmental issues this planet faces. And his role as an active Vice President sets the standard by while all subsequent Vice Presidents (Mr. Cheney included) will be measured. But neither Clinton nor Gore have significant environmental credits on their 1992-2000 records. "Dignity" and "honor" - great Southern virtues - did not carry the day that night.
This is a deep problem plaguing our party. John Kerry was not the candidate the country needed and not the leader we wanted. His election night failure to fight the obvious electoral distortions of voting in several states forever clouds his claim to the mantle of a "leader".
We were talking about this this evening, and we came back to Lyndon Johnson, who was undeniably a leader - in a policy sense. He laid out important change initiatives and got them done - in education, in social policy, and a variety of other areas of domestic concern. No one is complete, and his failures in Vietnam are his. But can anyone claim that he was not a powerful, fighting leader for this country? Did he not listen to his "wise men" and 5 days after meeting with them, did he not declare he would not seek the Presidency?
Among all those that claim they may be pretenders to the Presidency, I don't see the kind of commitment to issues, the kind of fight to make things happen, the willingness to do things that don't redound to personal benefit (in a political or historical sense). I don't see who stands out.
But, despite a sense of longing, I don't think we ought to overstate our recent, former standard bearers.