All in all, the election turned out well for Bill Clinton. Hillary won; her defeat would have been a personal repudiation. Al Gore apparently won the popular vote; this, too, spared Clinton a mass rejection. The closeness of the vote, though, has reduced Gore’s stature even if he gains the White House. This leaves Clinton as the Democrats’ most commanding figure. And if George W. Bush prevails, his presidency begins with huge weaknesses: a disputed triumph and threadbare control of Congress. Bush and Republicans will have enough power to be blamed for anything that goes wrong–but not enough to accomplish much.
Here are the makings of Clinton’s “third term.” Among professional Clinton haters, there’s been some premature celebrating. “A Farewell to the Big Creep–FINALLY!” headlined the National Review. Forget it. The idea that Clinton will quietly recede from the public stage is absurd. If Bush is president, Clinton will be forever needling and drawing unfavorable comparisons. If it’s Gore, Clinton will work through Democratic contacts to shape strategy; in public, he’ll portray what he likes of a Gore administration as a continuation of his presidency. For the next president, Clinton will be a powerful influence.
The shadow presidency may well be unique. One intriguing aspect of modern American politics is that presidents, once they complete their terms, essentially withdraw from political life. In this, the United States differs from parliamentary systems, where ex-prime ministers often continue to hold legislative office (usually trying to regain the top job). By contrast, our presidents retire, write memoirs and promote their presidential libraries.
The disappearing act has obvious explanations. One is personal preference. By the time many presidents leave the White House, they’re ready to retreat from the limelight. Harry Truman was 68, Dwight Eisenhower 70, Ronald Reagan 77. In other cases, unpopularity leaves no choice: Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson being examples. But there’s also a larger national tradition, which most ex-presidents respect. In the United States, the power of the presidency flows from the people. This means that, out of office, presidents lack the essential source of their moral authority. They can enjoy respectful treatment from the public as long as they don’t assert themselves too aggressively.
It’s inconceivable that Clinton will slip comfortably into this traditional role. Of course, he understands how ex-presidents are supposed to behave and why. No one is more sensitive to America’s political moods than Clinton. Not surprisingly, he’s already referring to his new reduced status. In an interview with Esquire, he said: “To the people and the commentators and the people that write about me, I might be just as good as dead the day I leave office.” He will, almost certainly, make a conspicuous effort to seem inconspicuous.
But one of Clinton’s great political skills is the ability to do exactly the opposite of what he says he’s doing. So Clinton will hover over a new administration, even while he’s pretending to stay out of the way. He’ll claim that he’s simply striving to be helpful, or that he’s being dragged into commentary by a badgering press. There might be some superficial truth to all these claims. For example, the press does love Clinton, because he’s so articulate and excites such fierce passions. He’s great copy.
The larger truth, though, is that personal chemistry makes it impossible for Clinton to fade away. He’s a completely political animal. At 54, he’ll be the youngest ex-president since Teddy Roosevelt, who left the White House at 50. To renounce politics at his age would be to commit psychological suicide. Hillary’s election will keep him in Washington and New York (as if he wanted to leave)–in the direct media glare. Possibly, he’ll be calculating how to become the first First Husband. He’s a compulsive gabber and schmoozer, as well as a notable failure at self-discipline. Sustained silence is not a plausible option.
But poor self-control is not the main reason that Clinton will linger. It’s his legacy. More than any president since Nixon, Clinton seems ready to make the refurbishing of his presidency a lifelong project. The next president automatically becomes a prop in this project. If it’s Bush, the worse he looks the better Clinton looks. If it’s Gore, the more that his successes seem extensions of Clinton policies, the better Clinton looks. Clinton will be tireless in trying to raise his standing in the history books.
What unites Bush and Gore is the desire to remove Clinton from the White House, spiritually as well as physically. If either man had won a decisive victory, the task would be easier. As it is, the mutual clawing since the inconclusive vote is now demeaning them both. One will become president, but as to who really won the election, the answer now seems obvious. It was Clinton.
———-
Robert Samuelson is a syndicated writer based in Washington, D.C.
