When It is Time to Leave-2
When we published the post reprinted below, we did not have President Clinton in mind. All of us are familiar with leaders who find it hard to bow out, even after their time is up.
The wisdom of the American people in imposing a limit of two terms on Presidents is clearer now than ever before. Not only does it save the country from ineffective leadership, it saves a President past his prime from making a public fool of himself.
Whatever Mrs. Clinton’s claims to the Presidency, her case is not strengthened by letting the former President be her main advocate. Clearly, she understands this. Early in the campaign, President Clinton played the role of strategist-in-chief. Karl Rove not withstanding, there is no one who understands American politics as well as him. So this would be how he is most useful for her.
So what changed in the last three weeks? It looks to us that Senator Obama successfully baited Bill Clinton into becoming an attack-dog. To someone as sophisticated as Obama, it must have been obvious that he was goading Bill into rage when he said
Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not.
Ouch. Is there a worse insult to a Democrat than to be compared to Nixon? Why would this be a good strategy?
As far as American politics has come, it is still not acceptable for a man to use rhetoric that attacks a woman. But how can you possibly run a political campaign without attacking the other candidate? Answer: pick a fight with a surrogate. Bill Clinton is perfect. While he may be the smartest politician in the country, he is also the most undisciplined. Famous for a volcanic temper, among his other passions. Whether intentionally or not, Obama goaded Bill into a frenzy with that comparison to Nixon. Followed by another swipe,
The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.
It stings all the more because it is true. The successful parts of the Clinton agenda were, in fact, Republican ideas that he improved and adopted: NAFTA, Welfare Reform, a Balanced Budget and the resulting economic boom. Even keeping the nation out of foreign entanglements used to be a Republican idea: in 2000, no one derided Nation Building more than W. Clinton failed in implementing the Democratic agenda : National Health Insurance, Gays in the Military. Senator Obama found a way to tell the truth in a way that also fulfilled his tactical purpose: President Clinton went ballistic and the people of South Carolina recoiled.
Can this be repeated for the next round, which matters much more and where Hillary Clinton is a prohibitive favorite? Hard to say. Even Bill might be able to shut up for ten days.
It is difficult to know when it is time to drop what you are doing and start something new. Jerry Seinfeld, the comedian was an exception. At the height of his fame he was willing to walk away from a deal worth a million dollars an episode, because he knew his show had lost its originality. But so few in the political world seem to know when it is time to quit. Some linger on, braving daily insults and votes of no confidence, in the mistaken belief that it shows strength of character.
The American people, in their wisdom, spared their Presidents this sad fate by writing a strict limit of just two terms-eight years into the constitution. It is just the right length of time, long enough that programs can be implemented and key people appointed. If you can’t get something done in eight years you are unlikely to ever do it. Time to give someone else a chance. Even Roosevelt was out of steam by the beginning of his fourth term. The two term limit was implemented by an amendment to the constitution a very difficult process to prevent this from happening again. This could be why we look back on the Reagan and Clinton years with such fondness. The truth is that their second terms were full of scandals. But they were still popular enough that they might well have been re-elected were it not for the constitutional limit.
After a few years in office, you convince yourself that you are indispensable. You become isolated from the friends and relatives who helped you come to power. High office attracts sycophants whose flattery you have by now returned with awards and honors. They reinforce your own feeling that without you there would be mayhem. But you cannot bring yourself to hand power over to one of these cronies: you feel their training is not over yet. There are just too many dangers out there that can destroy us without a steady and experienced hand at the wheel.
George Washington was able to resist this temptation. There were no term limits back then. He was a demi-god by the end of his presidency; no one would have dared to challenge him if he had decided to continue. But he knew it was time to leave and go back to being a gentleman farmer in Virginia. Thet set a healthy precedent for the nation. Many other national movements have suffered from the inability of the liberators to govern and then to depart. An extreme was the old Soviet Union whose leaders only left `feet pointing up’. Or communist China before the reforms.
Indian democracy suffered when Nehru-as visionary as he was- hung on to power for seventeen long years and died in office. There were several of his contemporaries who could also have led the nation. Their different visions could have helped the nation develop faster. Nehru’s decision to stay on prevented an alternative leadership from coming up. He was followed by a whole generation of mediocrities-including his daughter- who led the country to the edge of economic ruin. But India is a big place. Eventually, many new styles of leadership emerged, which have collectively created the chaotic but productive modern period. Is it a coincidence that in this period of rapid growth no one has been in power more than five years in a row? Governments are thrown out of power every election cycle just because the Indian people get tired of them. This `anti-incumbency factor’ has led to a healthy diversity in Indian politics never seen in the early years.
The British had another good idea. You have to be a commoner, a member of the House of Commons, to become Prime Minister or a Cabinet member. Therefore, only after stepping down from elected office are you eligible to be in the House of Lords. A good dignified end to a career in politics. But, now that the House of Lords has been all but abolished, this traditional way out is no longer so attractive. Imagine how much better it would have been for Blair if he had left four years ago? Baron Blair could have watched Prime Minister Brown deal with the Iraq debacle. The American equivalent is the celebrity speaking circuit. Most politicians make their fortunes after they leave office from book deals and speaking fees. Some are able to return to even higher office, tanned and rich, after a few years as a private citizen. A very healthy system indeed, except for the lower level retirees who end up as lobbyists.
Every organization must create its own version of the Virginia farm, the speaking circuit or the House of Lords, to which leaders who have had their time can be sent in dignity. It is good for them and good for the rest of us as well.
