The (Bill) Clinton Legacy

Barack Obama has vanquished Hillary Clinton, but when it comes to his evolving foreign policy, he still must grapple with the legacy her husband left behind. Bill Clinton worked hard to move the Democratic Party to the center, and most pundits believe that for Obama to win this November, he must do the same. But the Illinois Senator will have a more difficult time staking out the centrist positions that have come to define liberal foreign policy.

Foreign policy was not central to either of Bill Clinton's electoral victories. Like Obama, Clinton had little experience when he first ran for president, and each time his Republican opponent -- George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Robert Dole in 1996 -- possessed all the attributes of a national security leader. Yet Clinton understood that he needed to stake out "New Democrat" positions to convince Americans that liberals could be trusted on national security, something they had struggled with since their meltdown over the Vietnam War, as well as regain popular support for Democratic economic policy after the stagflation of the Jimmy Carter years.

During his presidency, Clinton made three issues the foundation of his foreign policy. The first was his approach to globalization. Clinton entered the White House arguing that the domestic and foreign economies were inseparable. He elevated economic policy to be a coequal of foreign policy, pursued trade agreements and intervened to stabilize global markets. He broke with the unions and advocated strongly for free trade; in his first two years he successfully overcame staunch Democratic opposition in Congress to pass both NAFTA and the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. He continued to argue that America had no choice but to embrace free trade, infuriating the political left, which organized against him, culminating in the violent street protests in Seattle against the WTO in 1999.

But trade wasn't the only issue Clinton used to reposition the party. Working with his top foreign policy adviser, Anthony Lake (who is now advising Obama), Clinton argued that supporting democracy was central to America's role in the world. It was also good politics. Clinton used the issue against the first President Bush to woo back to the Democratic fold those neoconservatives who abandoned the party for Ronald Reagan and believed the United States needed to do more to promote freedom in Russia and China.

Although Clinton had a complicated relationship with the military, he ultimately became comfortable with the use of force, something that initially bedeviled him in Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti. By the time Clinton left office, U.S. warplanes had launched major airstrikes against Iraq on several occasions and led the NATO allies in a war (without explicit UN Security Council authorization) to save the Muslim population of Kosovo. As had been the case on trade, many liberals were outraged as America dropped bombs in the Balkans and in the Persian Gulf, but "liberal hawks" heralded a Democratic commander-in-chief using force to defend humanitarian values.

Free trade, democracy promotion, and the use of force to uphold global norms comprised the core of Bill Clinton's foreign policy - and they remain the central ideas of today's Democratic foreign policy establishment.

Obama's approach falls squarely within this tradition, even if it might hurt him among his more strident progressive supporters. While Obama has criticized some of the specifics of trade agreements, he has been a steadfast defender of an open global economy. Although a critic of the Iraq War, Obama is hardly a dove -- he has called for doing more to end the genocide in Darfur and advocated the use of force against al Qaeda in Pakistan. And in terms of promoting democracy, several of Obama's most influential advisers have advocated for creating a new alliance of democracies (an idea also championed by McCain).

Yet each of these positions will be even harder for Obama to maintain than they were for Clinton. Already, this campaign has seen tremendous pressure on the Democratic candidates to repudiate NAFTA, arguably the signature trade achievement of the Clinton presidency. Many Democrats now see democracy promotion as radioactive - something forever poisoned by George W. Bush's rhetoric and justifications for the war in Iraq. And the political left will be clamoring for bringing troops home, not finding new ways to deploy them in the world.

For many Americans, the promise of an Obama presidency is in how he can transcend partisan politics and turn a page from the battles of the last generation to the addressing the challenges of the new one. But ironically, his ability to fulfill his potential as a new kind of Democratic foreign policy leader rests on how he manages to follow the path that Bill Clinton blazed.

For more, check out our book, America Between the Wars: 11/9 to 9/11

Comments

[MyGuyO]

6/10 & 9:43a//////

Speaking of Bill Clinton's legacy....Just today I read about a website re: Gennifer Flowers and Paula what's her name, have come together and will tell in detail all about their escapdes with the ex President. The catch is...their is a nominal fee to read all about it. Don't think I want to know.

Smiles:-) Obama/08

[mredder4]

The truth of American politics is that most people live in the center, not the right and certainly not the left.

You can see how much this will enrage the "netroots" by reading all of the anti-Bill Clinton comments on this thread. Bill Clinton administered one of the greatest Democratic presidencies of the 20th century, but now his name is dung because his wife had the nerve to run against St. Obama. It's such a shame to see the far left of the party embarass themselves by pretending that they never supported Bill Clinton. Why was he so great? He had a shotgun wedding to a GOP-controlled Congress and still managed to produce the surplus, survived an opportunistic impeachment attempt, and left this country much better off than when he entered office. The same can't be said for many of America's recent Presidents.

As a Democrat, it kind of annoys me that we have the cultural equivalents of neocons in my party too. Sharp partisanship has ruined this country, and the response of most (pro-Obama) Democrats seems to be "You ain't seen nothing yet..."

I hope Obama has the strength to actually lead on this, because American can't afford 4 or 8 years of correctionist uber-liberal policy any more than it could afford this neocon administration. But Obama's core followers will assuredly howl in protest at any attempt to move to the center and govern wisely as opposed to progressively.

[AshevilleVoice]

I get your point about centrism. Economics is different from social politics in that liberal economics cause the social inequities and environmental irresponsibilities that liberals and progressives want to reduce.

My criticisms of Bill Clinton are not personal attacks but rather reasoned assessment of the long range consequences of his economic policies. Clinton made some admirable fiscal decisions such as balancing the budget and even leaving a surplus (which Bush later squandered).

If you can cease thinking in B&W terms, so that any critique of Clinton means a person is anti-Clinton, and therefore a Democratic neo-con, you will better understand my position. I am actually criticizing liberal economics- specifically, Clinton's imprudent and rash push for free trade.

If you can stop looking for left, right, and centrist positions, and start studying what actually works as economic policy, Obama's economic proposals look very sound.

Have you read Obama's economic speech?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/us/politics/09transcript-obama.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1213106819-X/hugR8oXKWwREjDKVmnhQ

"And for all of George Bush’s professed faith in free markets, the markets have hardly been free – not when the gates of Washington are thrown open to high-priced lobbyists who rig the rules of the road and riddle our tax code with special interest favors and corporate loopholes."

[foreffectivegovernment]

As someone who realized that the words "Compassionate Conservative" were diametrically opposed to each other, I did not vote for George W. Bush either time.
For that exact reason, I am not impressed by Obama's economic speech or any other speech by a politician, Black or White.

[Beachchick]

The truth is that most Americans have been pushed to the right which is now the center. What used to be the center has been pushed to the left and the moderate left has been pushed to the edge and labeled radical. The conservatives engaged in a lengthy cultural assault on the left. It has been a great achievement in social engineering. Instead of the far right, Bill Clinton moved slightly to the left of right and called himself a centrist. Bill Clinton did what he believed he had to do to win.

Bill Clinton's centrist approach caused congressional Democrats to be falsely characterized as extremists. The centrist ideology was bad for Democrats and bad for American politics. What is the point of having two political parties that share the same ideology? I consider Bill Clinton a Libertarian. It isn’t my philosophy but it is much better than right wing extremists. Liberals consider any move to the left, even a fraction, a success.

[RichLiberal]

The problem you point out is because Obama has no experience. Believe me, I wish there was something about him or his campaign that I could find worth voting for, but I have yet to see anything. All I see is arrogance and know-nothingness - an unbearable combination.

For example, your point that Obama needs to fill Clintons shoes and is hard-pressed to even do that. What happened to all the new stuff? All the stuff that makes Obama special.

You know, I think I had this right from the start. The Obama campaign is and has been a total fraud. It's only purpose has been from the start as a way for the Democratic Leadership to stop Hillary Clinton. Now that they apparently have done that we are left to pick up the pieces and work with this new kind of politician. But now we find there's nothing there.

In economics he's going after Clinton's Robert Rubin people. In foreign policy it looks like he's in tight w BigNews Brzezinski a throwback to Jimmy Carter. In his "reconciliation" team w Hillary, it sounds like they are trying to get Hillary's supporters' money in exchange for retiring her campaign debt.

Overall, this is the sorriest state I have ever seen the Dem Party.

[Fabienne]

If Senator Clinton's supporters have money, why don't THEY retired her campaign debt? Obama has steadily outraised her in the latter part of the campaign and I don't believe he needs her supporter's money. She does need it. As for finding "there's nothing there", he has acted forcefully right from the beginning, announcing that the Party will no longer take contributions from lobbyists, confronting Joe Lieberman, initiating massive voter registration drives and other initiatives. He's been the nominee for less than a week and he is already impressive.

[frustratedinohio]

Just FYI. I tried to do this at her website today. Everything is set up to go to Obama.

[Beninn]

I couldn't disagree with you more, and after looking over your other posts, I see that you've been consistently proven wrong.

In yet another Hil'lary supporter, we see projected narcissism - It's more important to you that her debt be retired, than by Democratic contributors using their money more wisely by getting Obama and other Democrats around the country into office.

Hil'lary not only misspent the fortune (1/4 of a billion dollars) entrusted to her, she continued racking up debt and encouraging the fans among her base least likely to have discretionary money to pour it into an impossibly failed campaign. The only way for her to possibly win was by dirty tricks and divisive tactics.

You will never see the light, and I will never trust the C'lintons or believe a goddamned word that comes out of their mouths. They ran a shameful, ugly, racist campaign, and they don't deserve a second glance back.

The sooner the Dem Party closes the door to DLCers like you, the better the country and the world will be,.

[foreffectivegovernment]

Beninn: People like you who's sole purpose in this nomination race was to destroy Hillary and Bill Clinton are the ones who will scream the loudest when Obama has to move to the middle to get elected in the General. The first thing he should do is fire David Axelrod and hire Paul Begala and James Carville. Using "race-baiting" and "character assassination" against another Democrat worked very well in the Democratic Primary but will not work in the General.
Republicans and Independents are proud to be racist and will flock to any candidate that the Liberals attack. Just try bashing John McCain like you did Hillary Clinton and John McCain will win in a landslide. The DLC is leading you naive voters down a losing path. Just because you believed the smears against the Clintons, realize that approximately 18 Million voters didn't and it's not just Women like the MSM is telling you. They are just the most vocal.

[Ged2012]

The last thing we need is people like you who say things without even trying to investigate the facts. Obama's campaign money comes from the American people, did you know that? Saying that his campaign is a total fraud just shows how inutile you are with the facts.

[Beachchick]

If you are a mature voter who measures a candidate on issues, how can you support Hillary Clinton and not Barack Obama. I don’t understand it.

Mark Halperin (a man clearly biased towards the Clintons) said in a Charlie Rose interview that Barack Obama is one of the most gifted politicians this country has ever produced. Heck, even Pat Buchanan readily admits this fact. In December, James Carville said, "Obama is an extraordinary talent, a stallion. And right now he's in the stable. If he breaks out of that stable in Iowa, it could be all over."

The only argument Hillary Clinton could possibly make to persuade super-delegates that she was the better candidate and should win the nomination despite Barack Obama’s delegate lead was electability. Clinton’s quest was to make sure Obama was rendered unelectable so that her argument was valid. It didn’t work for Clinton, but I think the primary did hurt Obama. Believe me, the Clintons and other political analysts know that Obama is an extraordinarily talented and highly electable. His enormous talent withstood the brutal character smear waged against him. I have little doubt that Obama will win this November. Unfortunately, this means he has to move to the center for the general –hence Bill Clinton’s centrist approach to many policies.

[AshevilleVoice]

NAFTA has been a huge mistake, and anyone who cares about quality of life for US citizens knows that we are deevolving into a third world economy due to NAFTA.

Both NAFTA and the WTO allow corporations to bypass environmental protection and safety laws.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows corporations or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada or the United States for compensation when actions taken by those governments (or by those for whom they are responsible at international law, such as provincial, state, or municipal governments) have adversely affected their investments.

For ex: Metalclad, an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after a Mexican municipality refused a construction permit for the hazardous waste landfill it intended to construct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA

The passage of NAFTA expanded opportunities for corporations to produce cheaply in Mexico on the backs of low paid workers and an unprotected environment while selling dearly in the affluent markets of the United States.

http://davidkorten.com/globalizing-civil-socity

No economist who I respect considers these policies 'centrist.' If Obama is to make good on any of his promises, he will have to put the interests of US citizens, human rights in all countries, and environmental justice ahead of corporate interests. Clinton sold us out, and is a very wealthy man as a result.

http://www.nancho.net/bigmed2001/bigread1.html

[Titonwan]

I KNOW you're an Obama supporter! Right on! Great comment and links.

[in10se]

How did you get Huffington Post to publish this? This is a far more realistic view of the current status of world power structures than anything I have seen in months.
The 30% of the electorate on each end of the spectrum will not be moved by reason or logic, but the middle 40% can be reached.
LOUD APPLAUSE (and let us know where your other work is published)

[JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin]

I think we can do without the assertion that Bill Clinton moved the Dems "to the center". As many have said, he moved the party to the right, not the center, and the GOP moved to the extreme right because of it.

I hardly doubt that shipping jobs overseas and worshipping at the corporate altar at the expense of middle class voters are "mainstream, centrist" values.

[Alvin4NY]

Everytime you complain about the Clinton's, a media spinmeister from the Republican side smiles and says, "Excellent...." Jennifer Flowers made the front pages again....and yet Dennis Kucinich introducing more Articles of Impeachment goes un-noticed by the MSM. Something is so wrong with this continuing picture, and with the perspective of most Americans.

[Actionmac]

Let the good ol' boy fade to OBLIVION... we know who and that woman you married really are.

[lovethesinner]

You said it yourself, Bill Clinton didn't blaze a foreign policy path, he left it to CFR dinosaurs like Richard Holbrooke.

(definition of oxymoron: think tank)

Obama's potential is not going to be found in how he manages following Clinton's foreign policy path, it will be found in convincing America that the Bush-Clinton path is actually a dead-end.

I think Obama is clever enough to do that.

[freedomis]

If he has to follow in clintons footsteps what are we changing here?"yes we can!" what? If attack Iran or condone Isreal's attack no politician will get my vote because the shit is going to hit the fan.Tony

[iamamerican2]

Well clinton was right of center for a dem but he was better than carter, Anyway he wouldn't have won if he were a tree huggin anti war candidate. Change can mean so many things, I believe obama will win but
the county doesn't like sweeping change. They favor incremental change, todays conservatives are yesterdays liberals. Whens the last time you saw a picture of obama embracing a cypress, he's more left
than the clintons but he appeals to evangelicals, he shared a million votes with bush in 2004. Just look
at his health care plan, no mandate. Even though after becoming pres he might flip on that issue. On gay marriage he's for letting the state decided, this summer the repubs will try to paint him like that but he's savvy he know. Bush Sr tried it against bill for his activist past, didn't work.

[iamamerican2]

Well clinton was right of center for a dem but he was better than carter, Anyway he wouldn't have won if he were a tree huggin anti war candidate. Change can mean so many things, I believe obama will win but
the county doesn't like sweeping change. They favor incremental change, todays conservatives are yesterday liberals. Whens the last time you saw a picture of obama embracing a cypress, he's more left
than the clintons but he appeals to evangelicals, he shared a million votes with bush in 2004. Just look
at his health care plan, no mandate. Even though after becoming pres he might flip on that issue. On gay marriage he's for letting the state decided, this summer the repubs will try to paint him like that but he's savvy he know. Bush Sr tried it against bill for his activist past, didn't work.

[jhamm1]

Ultmiately, I believe that CLinton's incentive to intervene militarily in Kosovo and Somalia reeked of the same type of naivite that dooms many well intentioned interventions in which the political leaders know nothing about the region within which they are intervening and thus such reckless action is ultaimately doomed to failure. Yet, his more passive attempts to promote democracy showed promising results. In fact, we were on the verge of an historical milestone has the two KOreas came precariously close to unification, until the lowly bastard known as Bush threw a monkey wrench into the whole affair and forced North Korea into a defensive posture.

While I applaud his incentives in most foreign policy issues, I think Obama perpetrated a reckless error by threatening military action within Pakistan. Despite speaking hypathetically, one shouldn't threaten another nation's sovereignty until or unless the leaders of that country have already demonstrated their refusal to cooperate

[lanrameau]

ironic the Bill Clinton Legacy is a laundry list of what lead us to the situation we're now in. Shipping jobs overseas, corporate appeasement, Wall Street worship, murdering innocents abroad, ignoring the environment and energy independence are exactly what president Obama should NOT do.

If you were any more wrong it would hurt.

[hopeless277]

Amen, amen, I say to you Amen. Clinton did not lead the party to the center, he led it to the right of center. He let the Republicans tell him were center was. Not this time. Obama is much smarter than Bill 'I didn't inhale' Clinton. He does not have to be told were the country is because he is part of the country as Clinton never was. We are a liberal democracy. We have been turned into a facist dictatorship. Clintonism is definately not the answer. The challenges we face today because of unregulated corporate greed and control will not be overcome by moving 'toward the center'. They will be overcome by moving whatever way is directly opposite of the Republicans.

[strangelet]

I know that saying this to you is hopeless, hopeless, but the US is not -- and perhaps never has been -- a "liberal democracy", unless you're prepared to define Bill Clinton as "liberal". It is, sort of, a representative democracy. And we have made some progress in advancing liberal/progressive views over the years. But it's a very big country, and it contains a wide range of views.

BTW, one of the characteristics of a liberal democracy is a belief in the importance of private property (it was almost "Life, Liberty, and Property"). This has, I agree, gotten way out of control with respect to corporations. Regaining some kind of public regulation of corporate behavior is probably the biggest issue confronting us. But this will, if it can be done at all, require the reaching-a­cross-the-­aisle behavior for which Senator Obama is famous (aka, moving toward the center).

Globalization will not go away because we elect President Obama. We don't control it. If you want to see what happens when you try to pretend it is not there, look at the Japanese economy over the last sixty years. Protectionism worked great for about thirty-five years; then not. NAFTA clearly isn't working like it was supposed to; it needs to be fixed. But it attempted to address problems that will not go away if it is just rescinded.

Clinton did what he did (politically) because of how the world is. Obama will have to do the same.