The controversy over Bill Clinton’s over-vocal over-campaigning for his wife has dissipated, now that, in response to a chorus of public outcry, Hillary’s people have benched him (for the time being). But so long as Paul Krugman chalks this up to a violation of “unwritten rules" of the presidency "which seem to have been newly created for the occasion," it’s worth revisiting.
In 1796, George Washington turned down a third term of the presidency. Taking nothing from the brilliance of the Constitution as a document, it was this moment that breathed life into it. Washington walked away from power, adding a vital cultural dimension to the Constitution; the power of the presidency indeed would lie with the institution and not the person. This has to be one of the all-time greatest upset victories for the good guys, right? A peaceful giving up of power, unprecedented in history (relatively, and certainly on that scale). It was our luck that our first president, a war hero who in many other ages (present company included) could have gone on to megalomania, instead turns out to be a humility enthusiast. And really what he resisted wasn’t megalomania at all, but rather the temptation to think, perhaps even rightly, that he could have done the country more good. This is a big part of what sets us on our course, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s what Bill Clinton was bumping up against.
Bill Clinton was exerting a power he got by virtue of being president. And not for building houses or doing tsunami relief – for politics. And putting the best face on it - overstepping the bounds because he thinks he’s doing the country good - isn’t just arrogant, it’s disquieting. It’s why FDR was stopped from court packing and why we have the 22nd Amendment. It’s why Gerald Ford opines on the Iraq war from the grave and not before.
If it's really over now, I'm glad, although we were *this* close to taking the anti-dynasticism argument seriously.
1 comment:
why not take the anti-dynasticism argument seriously? it may not have a rational basis, since Hillary would probably be an okay president. but--and it feels weird to support this notion, but here goes anyway--who ever voted with their head? why do we have to rationalize our vote? to go bush-clinton-bush-clinton just doesn't FEEL right. it doesn't feel American. we should not have a political system that reminds one of Pakistan, where having the name Bhutto empowers an 18 year old kid to be the head of a major political party. okay, that may be a stretch analogy-wise...but so is Bill Clinton is like George Washington.
Post a Comment