A viewer asked this question on 5/5/2000:
What will the scandal culture, which has been feeding for ten years on the sins and sorrow of Bill Clinton and some other public figures, do now? Do you believe that the parched terrain policy left by Republican politics has left hatreds that will linger for years in the minds of some people? Are you aware that many have been hurt unfairly or completely destroyed, and do you believe they will they seek revenge? From the desultory impeachment trial in the Senate as far back as Arkansas politics in the seventies, where Republicans Sheffield Nelson and Justice Jim Johnson understood where Bill Clinton was headed, has it been a conspiracy? It was back then, they started making false accusations of drugs, sex, land - deals, loans, womanizing, murder and a host of other things with absolutely no basis or proof in an effort to prevent this bright young star from becoming president, will that come into play in the history book written about the Clinton era?
JesseGordon gave this response on 5/12/2000:
With regards to the "parched terrain policy", I think Republicans will be tested on that in November. If Gore & Hillary both win, the Republicans of this era will be remembered as "parchers" who attempted to destroy the up-and-coming star of Clinton. If Gore & Hillary both lose, the Republicans will be remembered as the brave souls who pointed out Clinton's true nature when it wasn't obvious to all.
In other words, history is written by the winners. You ask, "What will the history books say?" The answer is, "It depends who wins in November." If Democrats win back the House and/or Senate, Clinton will be vindicated. If the GOP wins big, Clinton will be demonized as the destroyer of liberalism.
In this case, the winners will be determined by the electorate, which is as it should be. I would say that the outcome of Gore's race, Hillary's race, and the House and Senate majorities, will be determined in large part by whether people agree with your thesis of a vengeful GOP, versus the GOP thesis of "exposing Clintonism." The press is correct, I believe, in labeling those four outcomes as the key to Clinton's legacy.
To be fair, this sort of thing has happened before. Nixon was regaled by the left as "Tricky Dick" from the time he was in Congress until his death. True believers in Nixon could use the same phrases you did, in reverse: hatred DID linger for years; careers WERE unfairly destroyed; and Nixon supporters would say that it was all a decades-long conspiracy to prevent the bright young star of Nixon from becoming President. In fact, Nixon himself believed in a conspiracy by the Kennedys and others to keep him out of power.
Think now what the history books say about Nixon. They don't focus only on Watergate, or even on Alger Hiss. They talk also about opening up China, about establishing detente with Russia, and of course about Vietnam. I think the history books are concluding now that Nixon served well as an international statesman, even after leaving office, up until his final years (you may recall he pushed President Bush to financially support Russia to avoid another Cold War).
Clinton will have the same opportunity as Nixon to redeem himself in retirement. Presumably the November election will be a "mixed bag" regarding Clinton's legacy; he'll probably get some, but not all, of the four races I list above. Then his history will be determined by what he does next. Will he get involved with international hot spots, like Jimmy Carter? Or will he go off to flirt with Hollywood?
Clinton has a very long retirement ahead of him. He can make the scandals a mere footnote by having an active retirement that will dominate the history books. Or he can prove his detractors right, by perpetuating the scandals into his later years.
AQB376 asked this question on 7/23/2000:
Is it just me, or are the middle east peace talks a last-ditch effort for Bill Clinton to have the history books remember him for something other than scandals? Undoubtedly, if all goes well, this will be a near miracle that will save thousands of lives. I guess I just want to stir up the pot a bit. Clinton has proven himself to be a man who cares about nothing but himself, what do you think his motives are for these talks?
madpol gave this response on 7/24/2000:
One thing I say a lot is that, "There ain't a wrong reason to do the right thing." Some of Richard Nixon's best work on Foreign Policy and the Environment happened during the Watergate hearings. Some of Clinton's best work may occur in these final months.
I don't think that Clinton is quite as bad as you paint him, but he really doesn't come off as the kind of hero you want kids to emulate.
On the other hand, stand Clinton up next to the Republican dominated Congress and he compares favorably.
Whatever the results of Camp David, Clinton's real legacy is the ongoing self-immolation of the Republican Party. I think that if the GOP takes a drubbing in November,(and the odds are that they will,) we are going to see the Social Right and the Economic Right split into two separate parties--with Libertarians like Arlen Spector up for grabs--by the 2002 Congressional elections.
A lot of people seem to be deciding that the "Big Tent" doesn't have room for divergence of opinion. The finger-pointing resulting from the voters' decision in '98 on the impeachment hearings had a lot to do with that.
AQB376 asked this question on 7/23/2000:
Is it just me, or are the middle east peace talks a last-ditch effort for Bill Clinton to have the history books remember him for something other than scandals? Undoubtedly, if all goes well, this will be a near miracle that will save thousands of lives. I guess I just want to stir up the pot a bit. Clinton has proven himself to be a man who cares about nothing but himself, what do you think his motives are for these talks?
stevehaddock gave this response on 7/24/2000:
Alas for poor Bill. He came into office trying to do just two things, either of which had he accomplished would have lifted him to at least the second tier of presidents. As such, even if he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, he will probably wind somewhere in the middle, like another peacemaker - Jimmy Carter.
Bill Clinton's first priority upon coming president was to press for universal health care. In the end, he just gave up. You know, not all Republicans were against the proposal, and Democrats were more solidly behind it. Clinton just let it drop. As it is, medical care has just gotten more costly and less accessible over the last eight years.
Second was an easy one, and one well within his power - allow gay soldiers in the military. No legislation - just an executive order. Instead, he backed off and, once again, the situation is far worse. If you think this would have been "controversial", Truman's desegregation of the armed forces resulted in him losing about 75% of the vote in the U.S. South in the 1952 election! However, it is also seen to be one of his greatest accomplishments and, 50 years later, we wouldn't have it any other way.
Mind you, I will give credit to Clinton for normalizing relations with Vietnam, a 25 year legacy of his predecessors that was long overdue for reversal. However, had he taken the same steps with North Korea (only partial lifting of sanctions) and Cuba, he could have assured his place in history. It's not too late Bill!