In Monica's Shadow

The angry tone of this year's primary season reminds us of the deep partisan differences dividing the nation. Whether its Iraq or the economy, the two parties are far apart and show no signs of compromise. The moderate middle has disappeared.

There was a brief moment, however, when the two leading political figures in America formed a secret pact to stop the slide into pointless partisanship and to tackle one of the most contentious issues of our time: Social Security. Ironically, the two men behind the effort are often the ones blamed for the culture wars that polarized America in the 1990s -- former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton. The story of their unlikely alliance, and its tragic unraveling, has never been told. Until now. In the course of writing a book about the two men I came across the notes of a secret White House meeting. The notes, along with interviews with many of the key players, reveal a hidden world where the two leading political protagonists in America were willing to put aside their partisan differences in a genuine effort to achieve meaningful Social Security reform.

Shortly after 7:00 pm on Monday, October 28, 1997, Gingrich, accompanied by his chief-of-staff Arnie Christenson, made the brief trip from his Capitol Hill office to the White House. To avoid being spotted by reporters, Gingrich approached by the South Lawn and came in the diplomatic entrance. Once inside the White House, the Speaker and his aide were quickly ushered into the elevator and taken to the Treaty Room on the second floor of the residence. Waiting to greet Gingrich were White House chief-of-staff Erskine Bowles, legislative director John Hilley, and the President.

The five men took their seats around a small coffee table. Clinton started the conversation by talking about his recent trip to South America, but the conversation soon strayed to the challenges of governing -- a favorite theme for both men. Gingrich was first to raise directly the issue of cooperation, suggesting that he and the president use their work on North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the historic balanced budget bill passed in August 1997 as models for the future. Before Clinton could respond, Gingrich was breaking down the possible areas of agreement into conceptual boxes. One box contained the issues over which they would continue to fight. A second included tactical questions such as appropriations on which they could cooperate. The third box was reserved for "a few big ticket items" they could work on together.

They both knew what was in that "third box" -- an unprecedented effort to reform Social Security and Medicare. "We had solved the short term problem of the deficit," recalled Bowles, "now it was time to address the long-term structural problems facing social security and Medicare."Both men were thinking about their legacies. Clinton was looking for a bold initiative in his final years that would define his presidency and answer critics who claimed he had failed to make a lasting imprint on the office. For his part, Gingrich was also thinking about how history would remember him. His idol was Henry Clay, the nineteenth century Whig Speaker of the House who used his influence to expand American power abroad and preserve the Union at home. Gingrich wanted to be remembered as a great statesman, not just as a conservative firebrand rebel and mastermind of the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.

The actuarial steps needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare were straightforward and, with government coffers beginning at last to overflow with revenue, easier to achieve than at any time in the recent past. "We always knew that finding common ground on social security wasn't terribly difficult from a policy standpoint," reflected Bruce Reed, the president's chief domestic policy advisor. "The policy differences were always the easiest to bridge." Politics, not economics, presented the biggest obstacle. Any long-term solution to solving social security required increasing the age of eligibility and changing the formula used to calculate the annual cost of living increase (COLA) -- two steps guaranteed to arouse powerful opposition from across the political spectrum.

Despite the odds, both men signaled their willingness to build a bipartisan coalition and to challenge the orthodoxy of their own parties. In private conversations with Gingrich and with Texas Republican Bill Archer, powerful head of the House Ways and Means Committee, the president promised to "provide political cover" for Democrats and Republicans by announcing his support for raising the minimum age required for social security and for reducing the COLA adjustments. The president was willing to oppose the leadership of his own party and support the Republican demand for private accounts. Although most Republicans planned to use the surplus for a massive tax cut, Gingrich privately accepted the administration's position that the surplus should be used first to save social security "for all time," with any remaining amount used for a tax break.

Bowles suggested the president and Speaker were now "partners." Gingrich demurred. "I would prefer to say we are a coalition, not partners," he said. It was an important distinction for Gingrich. "Partners are on the same team," he reflected. "We were never going to be on the same team." The two men were not looking to create a third party, but instead to forge a new center of gravity that would pull together moderates in both parties. "I understood that I would have to fight some of my old guard," Gingrich recalled. "He understood that he would have to fight his hard left. Together we could shape about a 60 to 65 percent majority. I was happy for him to be a successful president. He was comfortable with us being a successful Republican Congress."

Before the meeting ended, the two former adversaries had decided to put the past behind them and create a new center/right political coalition of moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats to push their ambitious overhaul of Social Security through Congress. Both men were confident that their new "coalition" would rival the New Deal and the Great Society in terms of the significance of legislation enacted. "There is no question in my mind in October of 1997, that we were looking forward to a period where we would cooperate on a broad range of really big issues," Gingrich recalled.

That brief moment of possibility ended, however, with public revelations four months later of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky -- an affair that started during the dark days of the first budget shutdown in 1995. The public never fully appreciated the damage done by the affair because they were unaware of the ambitious plans Clinton and Gingrich had set in motion in the months before the scandal was made public. Major newspapers destroyed forests trying to bring readers every detail of the affair and Washington pundits polluted the airwaves opining about its significance. But they all missed the larger point. "Monica changed everything," Bowles reflected with a tone of both resignation and anger. The Lewinsky affair, he declared, "was one of the seminal events in American history."

The Lewinsky scandal, and the impeachment drama that it spawned, not only ended any realistic plan for achieving entitlement reform, it exposed the bitter generational debate over the cultural legacy of the 1960s. The affair mobilized conservatives, who viewed the President's actions as symbolic of the moral decay of the baby boom generation; and it aroused liberals, who feared a right wing assault on the individual rights that had emerged from a decade of social struggle.

Today, all three major candidates brag about their ability to build coalitions with the other party. The new president will face a challenging political environment. The nation is at war, Wall Street is jittery, the economy is teetering on recession, and the budget deficit has ballooned. More than anything else, he or she will be need to contend with the cultural fallout from the failed Clinton-Gingrich effort.

Steven M. Gillon is the resident historian of the History Channel and professor of history at the University of Oklahoma. His book, The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation, will be published this June by Oxford University Press.

Comments

[Pollypolitics]

Thanks for an interesting article about the Clinton administration. I firmly believe that the problem this year is a kind of class warfare within the Democratic party. The specific remarks made by either candidate are mere "dust-ups" and have little to do with the deeper problem that Hillary's coalition does not see the far left as offering them much, and Obama's coalition would prefer to win without having to offer her coalition much. Her coalition has a traditional view of politicians that they are "hiring someone to fix problems." This is the class who isn't interested in joining a left-wing movement.

Obviously, her coalition is not particularly bothered by the past and, in fact, adored the Clinton years. It was a time of prosperity for them. His coalition has little use for those years and disdain the Clintons more thoroughly than Republicans ever did. I think the attack on the Clinton years is the untold story. He can never undo that, and it will leave her coalition chilly towards him as a result.

This divide will go forward, in my opinion. I agree with an editorial this week that this is the year when the labels: Democrat or Republican no longer apply. Voters will shift to find the candidate who best supports their interests. For a lot of the supporters of Hillary, I doubt that Obama will be able to do that. To appeal to that coalition, he'd have to offend his own.

So McCain will benefit.

[Caringthinkingperson]

The fact that "Monica changed everything" was not lost on the vast number of Democrats who had no problem getting over the Clintons. The fact that Hillary does not know this is only an indication of the level of denial she has had to maintain in order to proceed with her life, and her ambitions.

Your details of further ramifications than the majority if us were aware of only makes it worse. How long do we have to be co-dependant to disfunctional behavior? Is this any way to run a country? And does this not prove the need for a president who is largely considered post-boomer?

I think you've laid out the need for many more pages to be turned. Obama would, indeed, give the Republicans a chance to save face. They would not be contradicting the animosities that have been so dear to their hard-fought positions. We'd all be on a new page - a level playing field.

[WAstateliberal]

This argument about Republicans being able to save face when voting for Barack is interesting, I hadn't thought about it in those terms. What we know to be true is that NO Republican would vote for Hillary in the GE, whereas many might vote for Barack. At my county convention this morning I saw something that baffled/interested me: A truck was parked out front that had a bumper sticker which said "As a former fetus, I oppose abortion." I thought, what the hell is this guy doing here? Then, as I turned to go around the truck there was a giant Obama placard on his side window. In light of the fact that Obama is the most pro-choice of any of the candidates (and doesn't want pharmacists to be able to deny women the Plan B pill based on their misogynist attitudes, like Hillary does), I was intrigued. An anti-choicer who doesn't want to make his/her choice on this issue? A social conservative who realizes the gravity of what is at stake in this election (i.e. avoiding WWIII in Persia, Mesopotamia and Arabia? Hmmnn...

[Caringthinkingperson]

well WAstate, I am in WA State as well, and I love your visuals. We shall see how many Republicans avail themselves of the chance to look good. I think there will be quite a few, but then again there are people like Newt and Kristol. They are smelling fairly stale these days...

[myname]

"The Lewinsky scandal, and the impeachment drama that it spawned, not only ended any realistic plan for achieving entitlement reform, it exposed the BITTER generational debate over the cultural legacy of the 1960s".

OMG did you just say "BITTER"? (tongue in cheek)

[larry278]

OK, who will arrange for Ms Lewinski to represent California, or some other state, in the US Senate? Perhaps a new generation will reorganize & rebuild the USA. No, I didn't think so either. SS/DD/
l lynch

[wakupmagy]

If it hadn't been Monica, it would have been someone else.
He knew the Paula Jones lawsuit was looming, and he still had the affair.

Only a mindreader can explain such reckless, wanton behavior. It's almost like he wanted to be caught.

[Liberal2]

This business about Social Security reminds me of a scene in "Grapes of Wrath". As the Joad family is traveling west to California, they must stop for odd jobs One orchard owner offers a job picking fruit. Someone observes that his payment per containers picked over a day won't cover the cost of food for the day's labor. "Take it or leave it"

With the end of employer retirement plans, Clinton's plan to end Social Security (the rethug fix) will return this country to the pre-Depression era retirement plan....force the elderly to work until they drop dead.

I suspect this is Hillary's plan too.

[LondonTownNY]

This is precisely why character, integrity and the lack of honesty of the Clinton's truly matters. Bill Clinton was a failure precisely because he allowed his personal picadillo's to side track us from getting the nation's business done. This is why the fact that more than 65% of this country will never vote for Hillary Clinton matters. Hillary is UNFIT to lead America because she has clearly illustrated repeatedly that she is a LIAR and has no moral standing with the vast majority of Americans. It matters that Hillary & Bill's marriage is an arrangement, a sham to give them the appearance of being a nuclear family when the reality is that Bill has no restraint and Hillary is a lesbian living with her girlfriend. It matters because to keep up this facade opens people up to a whole host of questions regarding their trustworthiness. If your whole life is a lie then how can the American people ever trust a damn thing that comes out of your mouth.?

[Herrington]

So what is a good age for Social Security and Medicare to begin? If you raise it high enough, the whole problem goes away and you can just quit collecting Social Security and Medicare. 95 should probably do it.

All those folks that created the Social Security surplus for the last 25 years are screwed or the current wage earners are screwed. You should recall where all the Social Security surplus went. It allowed Reagan tax cuts that are still on the books. It is the perfect wedge issue, created by the experts at wedge issue creation, because it pits the aged against the young without so much as a murmur about who has taken all that cash to the bank.

The discussion should not be about some draconian "saving" of Social Security, it should be about getting the money that the Republicans gave away back into the coffers in time to pay the benefits that were funded by and for the current crop of retirees. If you think it can't be done, think again. Its called rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

Thank God for Monica then. Otherwise we would be trying to undo yet another Gingrich/Clinton socioeconomic disaster.

[dadw5boys]

THERE IS NO CRISIS IN SOCIAL SECURITY OR ENTITLEMENTS!!!!!!!!!

THE FEDERAL CAN PRINT $ 2.8 TRILLION DOLLARS TO SAVE A FEW GAMBLERS.

THEY CAN DAMN SURE PRINT $ 200 BILLION TO PUT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

YOU IS THE BEST INVESTMENT ?????

AMERICANS OR FOOLISH INVESTMENT BANKERS?????????

AMERICAN CITIZENS OF COURSE!!!!!!!!

[texpine]

"contend with the cultural fallout from the failed Clinton-Gingrich effort."

I'm not too sure any of the candidates has taken this into consideration.
I've not heard a word in any of the debates about paying back the Trillions
owed Social Security.

As far as Monica goes, I truly believe Hillary would be viewd in a far different
light had she dumped Bill and showed there were some things she just would
not put up with. I believe had she done that she might have been able to run
against Bush in 2000. She might have already attained "The Oval Office"

But that's just speculation. Water under the bridge........

[Stirner]

Right you are. I don't know how Hillary can stay with that dirty bird. She has surrendered her honor for some prize which she imagines requires that she stay with someone who has brazenly dishonored both his private marriage and the Office of the Presidency. Without either honor or fidelity, a silly womanizer like Bill, so loose with his zipper, deserves to lose whatever game he's in. I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of this unhappy approval-driven couple.

[trustedcommenter]

Repost with typo corrected (sorry):

"The moderate middle has disappeared?" No - nowadays you can find us somewhere to the left of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Anyway, so it turns out the Clintons were secretly conspiring with Gingrich to trash not only the welfare system - where they succeeded, with Hillary remarking that their erstwhile Democratic supporters should "get over it" - but also Social Security. Plausible, though not amazing. All Americans dependent on Social Security should say a little prayer of gratitude that Monica intervened.

[trustedcommenter]

"The moderate middle has disappered?" No - nowadays you can find us somewhere to the left of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Anyway, so it turns out the Clintons were secretly conspiring with Gingrich to trash not only the welfare system - where they succeeded, with Hillary remarking that their erstwhile Democratic supporters should "get over it" - but also Social Security. Plausible, though not amazing. All Americans dependent on Social Security should say a little prayer of gratitude that Monica intervened.

[longislandlol]

We need the babyboomers kids to straighten this all out...

[Shaddup]

Sorry, but as a member of the Blank Generation (Generation Jones--the one between Boomer and X) every company I've ever worked for has either gone out of business, or been bought out by a major corporation. Screw 'em. I wasn't born to fill your middle management, prairie dog farm cubicle, and you can all go rot. Bitter, yes. Tired, yes. Working for you, Hell no.