In the Eyes of History

NEW HAVEN, CONN. — Nothing President Bill Clinton does can affect his chances of reelection, because the 22nd amendment to the Constitution bars any person from being elected president more than twice.

In his first term, Clinton read public opinion polls obsessively and trimmed his policies and pronouncements to the political wind blowing toward the 1996 election. His inconstancy infuriated liberals, who felt betrayed, and Republicans, whose positions he seemed to be stealing. But Clinton beat Bob Dole.

Now Clinton has an opportunity to think and act in terms of the lasting legacy of his presidency. He cannot seek reelection, but he can seek a positive verdict from history. Success will not be easy. The times are only moderately propitious for establishing a memorable record. A greater obstacle may be Clinton himself. Does he have the political character required for the task?

A high and gleamy historical reputation cannot be pursued directly and self-consciously--as one pursues votes. Historical opinion will not be swayed by where the Clintons take vacations or by what clothes they wear. Opinion polling can indicate in general terms how many votes from various groups a president will get in the next election. But the votes of history cannot be predicted by asking a panel of historians every few weeks: “How am I doing? What should I do to improve the ratings?” On the contrary, those who aspire to a good historical reputation must try not to think in personal terms. They should put self aside as they concentrate on long-term goals, the articulation of ideas with lasting impact and laying foundations for the future. Dean Acheson used to compare politicians concerned with day-to-day fluctuations in public opinion to farmers who pulled up crops every day to see how the roots were growing.

Is Clinton one of Acheson’s farmers? Judging from his political rise and his first term as president, the answer is yes. Most successful politicians are shifty to some degree, but Clinton is a world-class shifter. Every move--from his student wiggling over potential military obligations in the Vietnam War to the abandonment of liberal policies and liberal advisors or the torpedoing of U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s second term--bespeaks a concern for immediate electoral satisfaction. If he does not change, his chances for attaining a notable historical reputation are not good.

Of course, reputation rests not on the president’s behavior alone, but on the combination of the individual and the circumstances. The presidents who enjoy the highest standing in the eyes of history were all in office at critical times and responded to crisis with skill, courage and sound judgment: George Washington in setting the nation under the Constitution on a sound foundation; Abraham Lincoln in preserving the Union and ending slavery; Franklin D. Roosevelt in restoring faith in the nation during the Depression and winning World War II; Harry S. Truman in setting a steady course at the onset of the Cold War, John F. Kennedy in dealing with the Berlin and the Cuban missile crises and avoiding nuclear war. A president’s failure in a crisis assures a negative reputation--for example, Herbert Hoover and the Depression, Lyndon B. Johnson and Vietnam, Richard M. Nixon and Watergate.

Some reputations are both good and bad. Johnson gets good marks for his domestic policies, and Nixon for ending the confrontation with China and reducing the danger of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Dwight D. Eisenhower has a below-average reputation on the domestic side, but a high one for prudent foreign policy. Service in uneventful times means a minor reputation, no matter how talented the president--just look at John Quincy Adams or Grover Cleveland.

The most highly regarded presidents are applauded today for putting the interests of the whole nation above partisan, regional, class or special economic interests--though their political opponents may not have agreed at the time. The most highly regarded also had an articulate vision, going beyond vapid cliches of what the nation should become. They demonstrated a sense of responsibility for future generations, not just for the immediate present.

Great and near-great reputations are generally connected with concrete achievements flowing from successful practice of politics as the art of the possible: winning a war, acquiring new territory, presiding over advances in civil rights. But greatness can also be achieved through failure if an unmet goal was truly ambitious. Woodrow Wilson is the best example of this. His vision of collective security and international morality through the League of Nations was defeated by the Senate’s opposition in 1919-20. Wilson did not practice the art of the possible. But he enunciated principles toward which the world is still working.

High personal moral standards enhance a president’s positive reputation, but are not essential provided a moral flaw is relatively minor. FDR did not always tell the truth and was not faithful to his wife, but no matter. Kennedy’s lubricious escapades tarnish his reputation only slightly. Fundamental political immorality, such as Nixon’s obstruction of justice in connection with Watergate, however, is fatal. Clinton’s moral reputation is middling at best, but not low enough at this point to be an obstacle in itself to a lasting historical reputation.

How, then, might Clinton achieve the historical reputation every president yearns for? He does not have the advantage of a dramatic crisis such as faced Lincoln in 1861, or Roosevelt in 1933 and 1941. Nor, presumably, does he wish for a situation of such appalling danger. The end of the Cold War and the self-dismantling of a powerful military antagonist benefit the nation and the world, but deprive Clinton of an opportunity to play the hero.

Yet there are deep, long-term crises at home and internationally that cry out for leadership. Will we at home and internationally reverse the ever-growing gap between the affluent and the poor? How can we as a nation make our cities livable again? How will we deal with the rapidly changing demographic structure of the population so that the needs of children and the very old are both met and are not put in competition with each other? How can elections become once again contests for votes based on ideas and policies, and not just on money, including tainted money?

Internationally, the protection of human rights is rhetorically embraced by the U.S. and all democratic governments, but progress is tragically slow in much of the world. Concern for the environment is sadly out of fashion in 1997, but far bolder efforts are needed to define and act on the essentials of a viable life-supporting environment for centuries ahead. And most difficult of all, is the task of dealing with the tension between the old tradition of state sovereignty and the realities of transnational forces beyond the control of states.

A president who works hard on issues like these will not see his ratings go up on weekly basis. He may become frustrated by lack of dramatic coverage in the press. He may even be accused of neglecting the present while focusing too much on the future. His approval ratings may even go down. But a serious effort to deal with such questions, to begin efforts that may not succeed for decades, is far more likely to benefit the country and the world--and to achieve an enviable historical reputation 50 or 100 years from now, than politics as usual.*