January 28, 2005
Elder Statesman
Radio Blogger has some excerpts of Bill Clinton's interview with Charlie Rose in Switzerland. As I read through it, I couldn't help but think that he's trying to establish himself as some sort of elder statesman in an attempt to finally establish a meaningful legacy.
If you're old enough to remember the Carter Administration, then you knew a time when former Presidents all but disappeared. They wrote books (Richard Nixon), ran charities (Jimmy Carter, until recently) or played golf (Gerald Ford). They would answer the current President's call for service, like the recent call from President Bush for President Clinton and President G.H.W. Bush with regard to tsunami relief. But they almost never spoke on current issues. There was no law against it; it was a tradition that had been honored since the earliest days of the country.
The dawn of the 21st Century saw a change. The two biggest violators of the tradition have been Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Carter has voiced strong opposition to how the war on terror is being handled. After a while, he begins to sound like that know-it-all retired guy who hangs out at the barbershop---you have to listen to him because that's the respectful thing to do, but you laugh at him behind his back.
President Clinton is a different animal. He doesn't attack the President directly, but rather talks about what he sees as America's past and present foreign and domestic policy mistakes. He comes across as the confessing sinner, sorry that he had to lead such a mess for eight years. European audiences, always looking for a reason to hate us, love the message.
I don't expect anything different from Clinton. After all, his wife is going to run for President in 2008, so he must frame this administration as a failure, even if indirectly. Further, nothing he said in the Rose interview is blatantly false (although some of it is intentionally vague, such as what happened in Iran in the early 1950's). He even said he likes President Bush but that "we're very different people". Really?
Presidents, present and former, are forever changed by their tenure in the White House. They lead the free world and oversee the world's only superpower. Their face, their words and their actions forever represent this nation. I don't expect Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter or anyone else to sing President Bush's praises at every opportunity; that would be disingenious. But is it too much to ask for them to be ambassadors of the good things that this country has wrought? We have done far more for the world than we have done to it--who better to convey that message than former living Presidents?
Posted by Matthew at January 28, 2005 09:12 AMI have entered the lair.
Posted by: Sly![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opaquelucidity.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 28, 2005 11:33 AM
Ah, so NOW he shows up.
Where was SuperSly and the TireIron he keeps boasting about when we needed him?.
Someone could have used a good beating last couple of nights.
:-p
Hash
Posted by: Hash at January 28, 2005 11:52 AM
How can you expect former Presidents to only be ambassadors of America, and the "...good things this country has wrought?" when right-wing blogs such as this one spend the majority of their free time bashing the Dems? Would it be advisable for them to just let your comments go by the wayside, uncontested? Do you do that?
I can agree that former Presidents have an obligation to their country to be ambassadors. They also have an obligation to their party, and that goes for Reps and Dems, to push the agenda in the hopes that the crucial few votes they may gain will be enough to put them over the top.
Face it, America loved Clinton and there is nothing you can do about it. People don't write history, their actions do. You yourself said that the future will ultimately be the judge of today.
Besides, if you think the UN is a useless organization, what's wrong with putting Clinton in charge. It'll give him something to do, and a new "office" possibly with new interns.
Posted by: Troy Overton at January 28, 2005 01:52 PM
What does bashing the Dems, as you call it, have to do with making people aware of the good things this nation has done? American good will does not belong to any one party.
I don't believe that former Presidents should continue to be spokesmen for their political party. I think they need to be "above the fray", so to speak. In a way, that would be more noble. They are not a nobility, but they're the closest thing we have to it.
Clinton as Sec. Gen. of the UN? Sure. Why not? The UN is bordering on impotency as it is--we might as well have an American filling that slot.
Posted by: Matt_D at January 28, 2005 02:04 PM
It doesn't have a thing to do with making people aware of the "good things."
Do you see the hilarious headline, where SlickBilly is driving around his office in a new Hummer while HillyC works the crowd at the White House.
Sad thing is, if anyone showed up there, it wouldn't be to see her.
Also, once you get to cut-throat politics (federal) there better be some paybacks after you spend two terms as ElPrez. Just watch, GWB will be kissing ass like he kisses babies now. Oh wait, my bad, the election is over.
Posted by: Troy Overton at January 28, 2005 03:21 PM
I am sorry I missed the opportunity. Hash, you handled the light weight well. You are officially a card carrying member of the tire iron club. Welcome aboard.
Posted by: Sly at January 29, 2005 11:19 AM
I took a while for me to pass Matt's background check.
Posted by: Sly at January 29, 2005 11:20 AM
Troy,
The dems shouldn't complain that the world hates us, when they are helping by mud slinging. They can "defend" themselves as you say, but the "defense" makes the image they are whining about. To me it's like saying blow that bridge so the enemy can't advance. You blow the bridge and then complain that you can't use the bridge anymore.
Posted by: Sly at January 29, 2005 11:25 AM