While spending a sabbatical year at Harvard, conducting research for a book on Theodore Roosevelt and his times, I have been reading with both interest and amusement the columns and speeches attacking Hillary Clinton for the enemies she has generated during her career and for her supposed inability, therefore, to bring the country together for high purposes.
One wonders, reading such pronouncements, which great presidents the authors have in mind. Are they thinking of Jefferson, who was hated and denounced so fiercely for his radical views; or of Lincoln; or of Theodore Roosevelt; or of Franklin Roosevelt; or of Truman; or of JFK; or of Ronald Reagan? One might, rather, argue, that a common theme of these presidents and other great leaders was that they had so many enemies, so many outspoken foes, often legions of them long before they were nominated or elected; and if polls were available, perhaps opponents numbering close to half the country at the time. Yet all were able to mobilize the country for important goals, to bring troops to their own side, and to vanquish some important foes.
To many people, today's debate seems unhealthy because it is so intense and even vicious and partisan. While it would be nice to live in calmer, more congenial times, partisanship and debate are the hallmark of our democracy. There were times when the nation explored non-partisanship, but the concept was discarded at the national level, partly because it tended to favor certain inside groups, certain entrenched interests. One can call for honest debate; one can hope that leaders, once elected, will avoid partisan uses of the government and attendant mismanagement of public assets; and one can hope that leaders will reach across the partisan divide for allies and appointees and that they will make decisions based on what they deem the nation's interest and not on hopes for partisan gain. But those who read biographies or histories that bring to life the worlds of Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, or Ronald Reagan may well wonder just which great leaders came to office -- or remained there -- without a huge number of bitter and, sadly, even hate-filled detractors.
While there are polarizing figures who should never be allowed to reach high office (David Duke comes to mind, for example), the Democratic Party should not shy away from leaders whom the right-wing loves to hate. For one can be certain that whoever becomes the party's nominee will quickly find that s/he, like Al Gore and John Kerry, has become a figure of derision and demonization. Hillary Clinton simply has a head start.
Loading comments…
Posted November 19, 2007 | 01:00 PM (EST)