Presidents and Political Thought

7. Bill Clinton: Flirtation with the Social Contract

Chapter 7 Bill Clinton: Flirtation with the Social Contract One of the things I’ve learned in all trade cases is that it once again reaffirms the wisdom of the Italian Renaissance political philosopher Machiavelli, who said—I’m paraphrasing here, but this is almost exactly right—he said, there is nothing so difficult in all of human affairs as to change the established order of things. Because the people that [might] win will always be uncertain of their gain; whereas, the people who will lose are absolutely sure of what they are going to lose. —Bill Clinton, speech to farmers and students in Seattle, December 1, 1999 Earlier this year I said we should reserve any surplus until we save Social Security first. We have done so. We should take the next step and act now. It is more than an opportunity; it is a solemn responsibility —to take the achievement of past generations, the Americans who, according to President Roosevelt, had a rendezvous with destiny, and to renew the social contract for a new era. —Bill Clinton, speech opening a conference on Social Security, December 8, 1998 Every president who has been interested in political philosophy has approached it in a unique way, has internalized a distinctive set of ideals from it, and has applied these ideals in ways that are original to him. Bill Clinton is no exception. Clinton’s intellect has frequently been analyzed, and patterns have emerged. Clinton reads prodigiously, he is a polymath who enjoys substantive discussions—sometimes to the point of a fault— and he likes to split the difference between options or avoid stark choices 155 156 Presidents and Political Thought if he can. How these intellectual tools were applied to political theory has been woefully underexplored, which is remarkable since Clinton chose to study political theory while he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University. At the very least, acknowledging Clinton’s acquaintance with political theory is necessary to understand what the president felt animated him. Clinton believed that he possessed a coherent, philosophically driven understanding of politics. He also came to realize how difficult it was for him to convey to the public that he had a coherent governing philosophy. Early in his presidency he observed to Larry King that “the thing that has surprised me most is how difficult it is . . . to really keep communicating what you’re about to the American people. That to me has been the most frustrating thing” about being president. This feeling did not subside in subsequent years. Speechwriter Michael Waldman describes Clinton as frustrated that he was not being given credit for having “a well-developed governing philosophy . . . far more than most presidents” while he prepared for the 1998 State of the Union Address.1 At the end of his second term, Clinton lamented to Joe Klein that he had not succeeded in communicating his “coherent philosophy.” Elsewhere I have demonstrated that Clinton’s sporadic articulation of his political thought was a barrier in getting the public to understand his public philosophy.2 Clinton possessed a worldview that was informed by political theory, but the public did not realize it, in large part because he talked about it only at strategically beneficial times. His political thought was built around concepts from political theory with which most Americans are unfamiliar, which further hindered his ability to communicate except by using the most general of terms. In his public addresses Clinton mentioned political theorists often. He typically did so very briefly and to make a specific point, as in the quote about trade above in which Clinton paraphrased Niccolo Machiavelli. The passage referenced is from chapter 6 of The Prince. The verity introduced there is that political leaders who hope to effect significant changes face great difficulty. Those who stand to lose are advantaged by current arrangements and perfectly aware of the stakes. They fight tenaciously against new rules and regulations. Meanwhile, those who might gain from change are not only disadvantaged by the current state of things, they are unsure what the future will bring. They do not fight for reform as hard as their opponents fight against it. Clinton would repeat this idea in public many times during his presidency, applying it across a range of issues, referencing Machiavelli each time.3 Chapter 6 of The Prince is a particularly important section of that pithy book. It describes the leaders whom Machiavelli deems to be “most excellent .” These leaders are “armed prophets” and...