Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts

Saturday, November 18, 2017

How Bill Clinton's resignation would have changed history

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's comment this week that Bill Clinton should have resigned amid the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal has ignited a firestorm of debate within the Democratic Party, and a backlash against the New York senator who now holds Hillary Clinton's former seat and has long-standing ties to the Clintons.


For what it's worth, as someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice, I believed then and today that he should have resigned for the good of the country. His salacious conduct was unbecoming of the president of the United States and a betrayal to voters who twice looked past various allegations of sexual misconduct on his part to elect him to the White House. But most importantly, his resignation would have spared the country a long impeachment battle, lifted the cloud from his presidency, and allowed the country to move forward in confronting its various challenges, not least of which was the growing threat of terrorism.
Regardless of what people think about what Clinton should have done in 1998, it's interesting to speculate how the history of the past 20 years would have been different had he stepped down and not served out the remainder of his second term. We'll never know for sure, but my guess is that the country would have been better off as a result.
Here's a look at some key historical questions to ask about the events that would have followed Clinton's resignation:


  • Who would have one the 2000 presidential election? 
  • Would the 9/11 terrorist attacks still have happened?
  • Would the United States have ultimately gone to war with Iraq?
  • Would the 2008 financial crisis have occurred?
  • Would Barack Obama and Donald Trump eventually been elected president?

Let's look first at the most obvious question. Would the outcome of the contested 2000 presidential election been different? It's far from guaranteed, but I think it's highly likely that Al Gore would have won the 2000 election running as an incumbent president who had restored a sense of order and normalcy to the White House following the Lewinsky sex scandal. Given the fact he would have almost certainly continued Clinton's core policies, Gore likely would have enjoyed an approval rating similar to the one Clinton had upon leaving office (66 percent). He would have avoided the uncomfortable dilemma of having to run on the Clinton record while distancing himself from Clinton's personal conduct, as he would have had nearly two years to build his own record. Given the razor-thin margin by which he lost the election (a few hundred votes in Florida), I think these factors together would have easily put Gore over the top. There's no way to know for sure what an Al Gore presidency would have brought, but the results most likely would have been better than the disastrous George W. Bush presidency, which included the worst terrorist attack in the nation's history, a misguided war in Iraq, and the beginning of the Great Recession. 

Which brings us to the next big question. Would the 9/11 attacks have unfolded the way they did? My guess is probably they would have, but the chances are at least marginally higher that they would have been foiled had Clinton resigned. For one thing, the year that was consumed with the sex scandal and resulting impeachment battle coincided with the time period when the 9/11 attacks were being planned. If not for the distractions that accompanied Clinton's scandal, the White House and Congress obviously could have focused more centrally on the looming terrorist threat. Of course, there's no guarantee that would have happened (they could have simply shifted their focus to other matters, and battles), but the impeachment drama certainly didn't help in keeping the country focused on what Osama bin Laden was doing in the desert of Afghanistan. Then there's the question of whether a Gore administration would have succeeded in preventing the attacks that a Bush administration failed to. Again, I think it's unlikely, but possible. A Gore presidency would have brought continuity in the fight against terrorism, and there's strong evidence that the new Bush administration didn't view the threat with the same urgency that existed under Clinton. It's hard to argue that the intelligence agencies that failed to prevent the attacks would have acted in a significantly different fashion had Gore occupied the White House, but we'll never know.

One thing that is safe to assume, however, is if Gore had been president during 9/11, there would have been no Iraq War. This was by far the most controversial, and misguided, decision of the Bush presidency. If Gore had been president, as I believe he would have had Clinton resigned, he would have focused on extinguishing bin Laden and his band of terrorists in Afghanistan and not gotten sidetracked in Iraq. 

But what would have become of the Gore presidency had he been elected and the 9/11 attacks still occurred? I think it's likely Gore would have been a one-term president. Of course, much would have depended on how he executed the war against terror and led the nation in the aftermath of 9/11, but he would have faced a stiffer challenge than Bush in maintaining the public's support. He would have received more blame for the attacks than Bush ultimately received as a relatively new president. Gore's critics would have been able to argue that he was part of the administration that had been in power during the years in which Al Qaeda grew as a threat and plotted the attacks, and had failed to take strong enough action to stop it. Bush's supporters could say that he had been president for less than 8 months when the attacks occurred, and that most of the planning for the attacks took place on Clinton's watch. 

So let's say Clinton resigned, Gore became president in 1998, won in 2000, then lost in 2004, likely to Sen. John McCain. That's my best guess on what would have happened in the years following a Clinton resignation. After that, the hypotheticals grow cloudy. How would a President McCain had executed the war against terrorism, assuming 9/11 had occurred? Would a war in Iraq eventually resulted? And would the 2008 financial crisis had played out the same way? Not knowing how Gore's and McCain's economic policies would have differed from Bush's, it's difficult to say, but many of the factors that led to the economic collapse were structural and beyond the relatively limited scope of any actions different presidents, or their administrations, would have taken in the preceding years (Congress likely would have remained in the hands of the Republicans during the majority of this period). So let's say the economic collapse would have occurred regardless of whether Bush, Gore or McCain were president in 2008. It likely would have doomed any re-election prospects for whichever party held the presidency at the time (I'm guessing McCain, but it's possible Gore would have won re-election). So perhaps Barack Obama would have been elected president in 2008 and Trump in 2016 regardless.

But the one wild card in all this is how a Bill Clinton resignation would have affected Hillary Clinton's political career. The fact that Bill was able to prevail in the impeachment battle and serve out his term certainly made it easier for Hillary to run for and win her Senate race in 2000. But would she have run and won even if her husband had resigned? My guess is yes. Voters largely absolved her of any blame during the Lewinsky scandal, and her standing in voters' eyes actually improved as she became a sympathetic figure, and the scandal shifted focus away from her own controversies, specifically the Whitewater ordeal. But while I think she would have run for and won the Senate seat regardless, I think it's much more doubtful she would have been able to mount a presidential campaign. The Democratic Party's views toward the Clintons and the Bill Clinton presidency would have shifted dramatically had he resigned from office in disgrace, and it's highly doubtful that the Clintons would have been able to maintain their powerful position within the party, particularly if Gore had won election in his own right. And if there had been no Hillary Clinton foil for Donald Trump in 2016, the chances are very high his campaign would have crashed and burned. 

So there you have it. Bill Clinton should have resigned in 1998 not only because it was the right thing to do, but because it likely would have spared us the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, possibly prevented the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War, and ultimately kept Donald Trump far away from the White House. 

At least that's my best guess. 

Thursday, November 17, 2016

How powerful is the most powerful person in the world? As powerful as we make him

One of the sentiments I've heard most often in the days following the election is that people feel largely powerless to stop Donald Trump and the Republican Party from carrying out their vision (repealing Obamacare, building walls, deporting millions of immigrants, pulling out of climate deals, blocking common-sense gun regulations).
Don't be so sure.
It's easy to forget how powerless the most powerful man in the world can quickly become when he lacks public support and approval for his agenda. It's one of the brilliant aspects of the checks-and-balances systems the forefathers enshrined in our Constitution.

George W. Bush's approval ratings as president


Be careful what you wish for

A little history. The success of presidents whose party controls Congress in carrying out their agenda has been largely checkered, particularly in modern times. Jimmy Carter's party controlled both houses of Congress for all four years of his presidency, and he had among the worst relationships with Congress of any modern president, accomplishing little. Bill Clinton's party controlled Congress the first two years of his presidency, and his (and Hillary's) health care plan went up in smoke, before the Republican Revolution of 1994 that left him to argue he was still relevant (remember "the Constitution makes me relevant"). George W. Bush famously said after the 2004 election that he was going to use the "political capital" from his re-election to push the privatization of Social Security through a Republican-controlled Congress. It went nowhere, and two years later the Democrats seized control of both houses, laying the foundation for Barack Obama's rise two years after that. Even Obama nearly failed to pass the Affordable Care Act, succeeding by only the slimmest of margins when he lost his filibuster-proof Senate, before his lukewarm approval numbers cost the Democrats the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014..

Power from the people

Why have so many presidents failed when they seemingly had free rein to push their legislative program through a friendly Congress? It all comes down to popularity and approval ratings. Carter, Clinton, Bush and even Obama all suffered from lackluster approval ratings when their party controlled Congress, and that cost them the "capital" they needed to deliver on their plans. Every member of Congress is thinking about the next election, or that of their successor. When the president is popular with the American people, regardless of party, they are likely to go along with large parts of his agenda (think Ronald Reagan's tax cuts). When he is not, regardless of party, they are likely to run for the hills.
What Donald Trump is, or is not, able to do over the next four years will largely depend on his popularity with you and me. Given where he stands now, he has Mt. Everest to climb.

Madden's Most Memorable Oakland Moments

  John Madden celebrates the "Sea of Hands" victory in the 1974 playoffs that ended the Miami Dolphins' dynasty.              ...