By: Lee Bockhorn
Looking at the state of American politics heading into November's election, one might be inspired to write: "These are the times that try conservatives' souls." Those of us who care about things like smaller government, judicial restraint, a balanced budget, term limits, and property rights cannot help but feel beleaguered at the all-too-likely prospect of Bill Clinton's reelection (barring an act of God or Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr). However, perhaps we conservatives should take our cue from the otherwise uninspiring Bob Dole, the self-proclaimed "most optimistic man in America", and realize that a Clinton victory in November is not the end of the world, and might even be a blessing in disguise.
Now please don't misinterpret this as an endorsement for Clinton. This author happens to believe that Clinton is probably the sorriest excuse we have had for a President this century. However, I also feel that one can choose to sit around feeling sorry for themselves, or to look for the good in everything -- even four more years of Bubba -- and I intend to do the latter in this essay.
The assertion that a Clinton second term might actually be a blessing for conservatives may sound rather absurd, but historical precedent, as well as many indications from Clinton's first term, support this proposition. First, almost every second term presidency this century has been at best mediocre, and at worst a complete disaster. The most obvious example is Nixon's, one which Clinton's second term may eventually resemble more closely than most Americans would like it to. Reagan also dealt with scandal during his second four years (Iran-Contra). And if political scandal doesn't get the best of Clinton, there is always the minefield of foreign and domestic policy. Eisenhower's second term was troubled by the beginnings of Vietnam, increased tension in the Middle East, the U-2 incident with the Soviet Union, and turmoil in the South concerning the beginnings of the civil rights movement. Truman had to deal with the Korean War; and Lyndon Johnson, while not technically in his own second term, had to cope with the Vietnam quagmire, protests, and unrest in the inner cities after having served about a third of Kennedy's first term and then being re-elected. Reagan, besides Iran-Contra, also had his hands full with the S&L crisis and the 1987 stock market crash.
Certainly historical precedent is not comforting for Mr. Clinton. In his case, Bosnia, the Middle East, and Russia are all "hot spots" which might become problems in the area of foreign policy. Domestically, the looming crisis of bloated entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, the continued blight of our inner cities, and the prospect that natural business cycles will almost certainly bring some form of recession during the term of the next president, should trouble the "man from Hope". And, if all of this isn't enough to sober up gleeful liberals, consider that every second term president since World War II has seen his party lose seats in Congress after the midterm elections.
Why are second terms fraught with such peril? Besides simple probability (the longer one stays in office, the more chances there are for something to go wrong), there is another more fundamental reason. Simply put, every president enters office with only so much political capital, and they've usually spent most of it by the end of their first term. Clinton spent enormous sums of his to pass his economic "plan" (which passed a Congress controlled by a large Democratic majority by just one vote in both houses), and on his arrogant attempt to socialize one-seventh of the U.S. economy to deal with the health care "crisis". Like those who preceded him, Clinton has already accomplished most of anything substantial he will do during his first term.
Given all of this, why are we about to reelect this bozo? Possibly people can look past Clinton's numerous faults and vote for him because they realize that perhaps no president has become so inconsequential, so quickly, as he has. Witness his transformation from a president who called for "fundamental and profound and relentless and continuing change" in 1993, to a president who proclaimed in 1995 that the "era of big government is over", and who is now out and about the country making an entire laundry list of banal proposals dealing with everything from school uniforms to teen curfews. (Rumor has it that the first legislative proposal of a Clinton second term will be to increase the amount of peanuts in a Snickers bar. . .)
Conservatives should not accept Clinton's reelection solely as the opportunity it presents for him to continue demonstrating how ridiculous and irrelevant he is. It also gives the Republicans four years to find someone who does a better job of articulating the conservative message than Bob Dole, who -- let's face it -- doesn't exactly set the world on fire. And don't forget, the likely Democratic nominee in 2000 will either be Al Gore, who makes even Dole look like a party animal (and who, coincidentally, admitted to taking tobacco money after his sister's smoking related death from lung cancer, which he told us about misty-eyed at the Democrats' convention), or Dick Gephardt, who is even more liberal than Clinton and, to his credit (somewhat), at least has the nerve to admit it.
Some of you reading this might be thinking, "If Clinton gets reelected, he won't have to worry about campaigning again in 2000, so won't he just go back to his real liberal ways?" Well ...yes -- he very well might. But he will do so at his own risk. Recall what happened the last time Clinton revealed his true liberal colors (1993-1994); it reminded Americans just how much they disliked having a liberal president and Congress, and led to the greatest political sea change in Congress in over half a century. Furthermore, even if Clinton does become a liberal again, he will have to deal with a Congress that will still be controlled in one, if not both houses, by the GOP. (The House race looks tight, but the GOP may actually gain seats in the Senate due to Democratic retirements.)
The prospect of both continued GOP control of Congress and a Clinton reelection has many people whining about the problem of "gridlock" again. Certainly conservatives would rather have a Republican in the White House also, but if anyone should be pleased with the possibility of gridlock, it is conservatives. First, for conservatives the less Washington can actually accomplish to expand government the better; gridlock basically ensures that will be the case. More importantly, though, anyone who considers themselves a true "conservative" wants our government to once again embody the ideals of the document that established it, the Constitution. "Gridlock", while annoying to liberals who desire government to be a well-oiled mechanism of social engineering, embodies many of the ideals the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution -- a government that would be deliberate, that would "refine and enlarge the public sentiment", that wouldn't pass harebrained schemes like the Clinton health care "plan" unless the American people were truly committed to it. So perhaps Newt & Co. don't get everything they want with Clinton in the Oval Office; if conservatives have learned anything from the last two years it is that slow and steady wins the race, and even reforms the American people want take blood and sweat to make a reality (see welfare reform).
The American public seems to have grown fond of gridlock; only six of the last twenty-eight years have seen one party control both houses of Congress and the White House. Some recent polls have suggested that Clinton's support has gone up as more people see him as a "check" on the Republican Congress -- that is, most people now basically support conservative ideas but see Clinton as a moderating influence who softens the "rough edges" of the Republicans. For Clinton, this is the perfect role. The GOP landslide in 1994 freed him from the responsibility of governing and allowed him to simply be the "NO" man standing up to the "evil" GOP congress -- an easy job for Clinton, who has amply demonstrated his inability to stand for anything any longer than it takes him to eat a Big Mac.
Nevertheless, the real loser if Clinton wins on November 5th is the Democratic Party. One reason why they were so soundly defeated in 1994 was that they had become a party bankrupt of ideas; for all of their jabbering about "change", they were more concerned with protecting the status quo for the special interests in their party -- unions, government employees, trial lawyers, and the list goes on. What is telling now is just how little fuss liberals have made while Clinton has continued to sell out the values that Democrats once stood for. There was no primary challenge to the Democratic incumbent in 1996, the first time that has happened in decades. Liberals are so united in their fear of conservative ideas that they are shutting their mouths and throwing their money and support behind a candidate who will say anything to stay in office. A hollow party rallying behind a hollow man can only mean a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats in November.
So, conservatives, dry your eyes. The ideas we stand for are powerful enough to transcend one lackluster presidential candidate -- they've been around since before the beginning of the Republic. Contrary to what any moron (who rips off his column title from a Faulkner novel) may write in that packing material otherwise known as the Daily about the "right revolution" being "dead", a Clinton reelection means no such thing. Rather, take heart in the fact that the war for the political heart and soul of America has already been won by the conservative movement. (If you doubt this, note how one of the most liberal presidents of this century found it necessary to sign GOP legislation ending a New Deal entitlement program just to win reelection.) We may lose a battle on November 5th, but keep your eyes on the bigger picture. There are still other battles that can be fought and won, even right here at U of M -- like taking back this campus from the liberals who dominate the administration, faculty, and MSA.
In closing, I can only add this parting thought: perhaps having a presidential administration as inconsequential as Clinton's second term is likely to be is appropriate for an era in our country's history when, more than ever, putting our nation back on the proper path (regardless of all this nonsense about "building a bridge to the 21st century") depends less and less on what occurs in our increasingly distant capital of Washington, and more on what we all do as individuals. Shall we get started?