The Presidency of Hillary Clinton: a look back, a look ahead

The Presidency of Hillary Clinton: a look back, a look ahead

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy offers a feature none of the other candidacies can. Her presidency can be read, in advance. The reader need not have psychic powers. No, in this case, the reader needs the invaluable facility to interpret history.
     A similar circumstance existed during the election of 2000. The presidency of George W. Bush could have been read in advance, too. The policies of his father foretold the direction of the son. In the case of the younger Bush, as in the case of the younger John Adams, the son learned the lessons of the father. The son, during his time in power, then used his father’s policies to push his own agenda.
     Today, with a different sort of family dynasty moving toward the White House, the question must be asked: Will the wife use the husband’s policies to push her own agenda? The answer is clear, if history is any indicator.
     With the South Carolina primary set for Saturday and with the Florida primary to follow on Tuesday (two primaries, I predict, that Hillary Clinton will gain momentum, setting off her march to the White House), I thought it might be a good idea to look back on the legacies of sons following their fathers in the White House, and look ahead to the wife following the husband.

THE POLICIES OF JOHN ADAMS AND HOW THEY IMPACTED THE PRESIDENCY OF J.Q. ADAMS

The year was 1798. As the French Revolutionary Wars segued into the Napoleonic Wars, the burgeoning United States of America was caught in a vise. With the great anglophile John Adams siding with the British, the French chose a strategy of severely crippling American commerce. From 1798 to 1800, the French Navy captured over 300 American vessels trading with the British. A great debate over policy consumed the administration of John Adams. Should the U.S. choose neutrality? Should the country join the British in a naval war against the French? Should the country attempt to negotiate a peace with the French?
     President Adams decided upon a belligerent course of action, known as the Quasi War against the French.

What did John Quincy Adams learn from his father’s policies? In short, that no European power has the right to interfere with the affairs of America in the western hemisphere. As secretary of state (1817-1825), J.Q. Adams fought a one-man battle within the U.S. government. This was a delicate time. Central American republics were pushing for independence. European suzerains were threatening wars in retaliation. Russia was encroaching upon the Northwest corridor. The American government adhered to the rules of neutrality. “Essentially alone,” Paul Nagel wrote in his biography of J.Q. Adams, “Adams insisted that it would be wiser if the nation warned the world that the western hemisphere was no longer to be intruded upon.”
     Adams won the day. President James Monroe voiced this defining foreign policy change in his final State of the Union address. He gave the policy a name: The Monroe Doctrine.
     The author of the Monroe Doctrine, of course, was John Quincy Adams, who succeeded Monroe in the White House.

In that same year President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts, in four separate pieces, suppressed dissent. The Sedition Act made it a crime to say or write anything “false, scandalous and malicious” against the government. According to Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, “ten Americans were put in prison for utterances against the government, and every member of the Supreme Court in 1798-1800, held it constitutional.”
     While President Jefferson would pardon these Americans and push for the unconstitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts in total, the Alien Enemies Act remains on the books.

What did John Quincy Adams learn from his father’s policies? In one word, tolerance. J.Q. Adams, during his presidency, was a loyal abolitionist. At a time when the suppression of slaves’ rights was the norm, at a time when Adams was surrounded by either proponents of slavery (his vice president, John C. Calhoun) or great compromisers (his secretary of state, Henry Clay), Adams voiced his displeasure. He believed that the “bluster of the white slavocracy had cowed America into submission.” And, writing in his personal journals, he called slavery and its defenders “morally and politically vicious.”
     Adams also took an unpopular stance on the second great issue of the day. In his first inaugural address, Adams promised to “promote the civilization of the Indian tribes.” During the four years of Adams’ presidency, the Indian Removal Act came up twice in Congress. The bill, which called for Indian removal from Georgia (particularly the Cherokee), had great support, particularly in the South. Both times J.Q. Adams campaigned vigorously against it. Both times he put his political career on the line. Both times the bill failed to pass.
     By taking this position, Adams lost the presidency. The Southern Democrat, Andrew Jackson, defeated Adams in the bitter election of 1828. Jackson campaigned on a promise to “Civilize the Cherokee.” Jackson won every state south of the Mason-Dixon line and New York.
     The Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830.

THE POLICIES OF GEORGE H.W. BUSH AND HOW THEY IMPACTED THE PRESIDENCY OF W.

The first President Bush believed in pardons. Among the many, Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, Robert McFarlane, Elliot Abrams, and Ollie North. He also issued a pardon of sorts to Saddam Hussein, by not turning Operation Desert Storm into Operation Slay Saddam. He offered another pardon of sorts to Clarence Thomas, accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. Bush stood behind the nomination. In doing so, he replaced the iconic Thurgood Marshall with Mr. Long Dong Silver, as Thomas – allegedly – promoted himself to Hill.

What did George W. Bush learn from his father’s policies? Bush saw the vulnerability associated with pardons. He became the anti-pardoner (with exceptions: See Libby, Scooter). He gave his policy a motto: “You’re either with us or against us.”
     Here’s a partial list of issues/individuals running contrary to the agenda of George W. Bush and therefore condemned: stem cell research, civil liberties (the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay detainment camp), global warming (George, it’s 58 degrees in New York today. Tomorrow’s supposed to be in the high 60s. Do you know what that means? Girls in miniskirts. Boys in Bermudas. It’s January. Think about it.), the Louisiana side of Hurricane Katrina (Bush pardoned the Mississippi side – could this have to do with Republican Mississippi versus Democratic Louisiana?), and the entire field of primary education. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 put enormous pressure on children to perform on tests. No Child Left Behind de-emphasized critical thinking. Imagine that. The Bush administration de-emphasized actual thinking.
     In a wonderful sort of irony, George Bush severely underfunded his one educational program.

THE POLICIES OF BILL CLINTON AND HOW HILLARY WILL PROCEED

Bill Clinton arrived at the White House door on a whirl of anticipation. He left deflated (though his presidential approval rating at the conclusion of his presidency was a whopping 65 percent). The Lewinski scandal dragged down Clinton’s second term, but his presidency in general speaks to untapped potential. Consider some of the failures of his presidency: “Don’t ask, Don’t tell,” health care, and the genocide – or ethnic cleansing, as it was called – in the former Yugoslavia. It took Bill Clinton three years to act. Three years of horrific video testimony. Three years of survivors’ stories. Three years of concentration camp atrocities.

What will Hillary Clinton do as president? In Clinton II, I anticipate gun control laws (Clinton I passed the Brady Bill). I anticipate free trade, despite the typical Democratic campaign rhetoric of tariffs. Clinton I, after all, trumpeted the North American Free Trade Agreement. I anticipate thoughtful Supreme Court justices in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I anticipate health care reform. If George W. Bush wanted to go after Saddam before 9/11, then certainly Hillary wants to right her past wrong on health care.
     In Clinton II, I anticipate a priority of balancing the budget. Bill Clinton inherited a $4 trillion national debt. He raised taxes on the wealthy. He cut taxes for the working classes. By the end of Clinton I, there was a $236 billion surplus.
     Not surprisingly, during a Republican era, the deficit exploded. The second President Bush returned to Reagan/Bush era policies (Reagan inherited a national debt of $995 billion and pushed it toward the $4 trillion mark). Bush blew through the Clinton surplus in the first year. He gave the top 1 percent of income earners some $630 billion in tax cuts. He promoted the trickle down effect. At the same time, he went on his Iraq crusade, costing the taxpayers $195 million per day. Whoever becomes president, he/she will inherit a $244 billion budget deficit.
     If the wife has learned the lessons of the husband, Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to deal with the deficit.
     According to Bill Clinton, his two biggest policy regrets were not responding in a timely manner to the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and the failure of a Middle East peace treaty. Clinton called American intervention during times of genocide, “An obligation.”
     If the wife has learned the lessons of the husband, Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to deal with future genocides.
     As for Israel/Palestine, the players have changed since Clinton I, and will continue to do so. Can a government of Tzipi Livni reach an agreement with the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas, as brokered by Hillary Clinton?
     Possibly. But no other candidate is better equipped to handle those kinds of negotiations. The lessons of the husband, as passed to the wife, tell us so.

Sponsored by EnterTo.com the first REAL spam free email

Click Below to discover and share content from anywhere on the web

The Gonzo Journalism of Brian Josepher

The Presidency of Hillary Clinton: a look back, a look ahead