The Clinton Presidency

Campaigning, Governing, And The Psychology Of Leadership

Stanley Renshon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000315509
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The Clinton presidency faced a basic set of public questions at the outset regarding its real intentions, strategies, and competence. Would the administration be able to develop and implement policies that were constructive in intent, fair in formulation, and successful in result? Would President Clinton be able to govern as successfully as he campaigned? Would there be a productive fit between Clinton's leadership style and the needs of the public? Additional questions arise about Clinton personally. Many admire him; others distrust him. What realistic basis is there for either view? This book explores these questions and develops an initial appraisal of the Clinton presidency. The chapters herein are framed by theories of political leadership and psychology. They draw on a diverse body of theories, including psychological theories of character and personality, cognitive psychology and communication theory, theories of presidential leadership and performance, and theories of public psychology. The goal is to examine the many facets of leadership and governing that constitute the modern presidency and to locate Bill Clinton's emerging presidency within that framework. Bill Clinton is and likely will remain a controversial president. One objective of this analysis is to provide a clearer, more objective framework in which to evaluate both the man and his approach to political leadership and executive power and the consequences of his approach for public psychology and policy.

1
The Psychological Context of the Clinton Presidency: A Framework for Analysis

STANLEY A. RENSHON

The purpose of this book is to explore and develop an initial appraisal of the Clinton presidency. Our effort is framed by an exploration of the 1992 election and by theories of political leadership and psychology. The chapters herein draw on a diverse body of theories, including psychological theories of character and personality, cognitive psychology and communication theory, theories of presidential leadership and performance, and theories of public psychology. Our goal is to examine the many facets of leadership and governing that constitute the modern presidency and to locate Bill Clinton’s emerging presidency within that framework. One result, we hope, will be a clearer, more objective framework in which to evaluate the man, his approach to political leadership and executive power, and their consequences than has been available in the past.

There are several reasons that a clearer, more objective framework is needed. First, Clinton himself is and will likely remain a controversial president. Throughout his public life he has generated intense feelings, ranging from idealization to distrust and dislike. Many admire him. He is clearly smart and knowledgeable about many aspects of domestic policy and has focused attention on and put forward plans to resolve long-standing public problems, such as those in health care. He is clearly determined to leave his personal and political imprint and has proposed the most ambitious schedule of policy initiatives in twenty-five years.

Yet many distrust him. During the presidential campaign he evaded and dissembled when asked about his avoidance of the draft during the Vietnam War, his smoking of marijuana, and his extramarital relations. Since he has be come president, a number of questions have arisen about his candor, leadership, and even competence. One major columnist (Herbert, 1994) recently characterized Clinton as a “truth sculptor,” whereas another (Peters, 1994, 21) noted “a history of difficulty with the truth.” It is unusual for a president to come into office with the public holding such strong and contrary views. There needs to be some systematic and more objective analysis of the basis, if any, for each of these feelings and their implications for Clinton’s presidency.

Second, these strong and conflicting views have to some degree limited what we have come to understand of Clinton and his approach to political leadership and social policy. For a man who has been in elected public office for almost all of his adult life, there is surprisingly little objective, systematic knowledge of Clinton as a political figure and leader. Clinton, like other presidents before him, has supplied a number of details about his life and career. However, presidents’ views of their own record are not necessarily the most reliable guide to understanding them.

Third, reporters and other analysts covering the Clinton presidency tend to focus too much on particular policy victories or setbacks. Did the budget and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) pass? Did Clinton backtrack on his commitments to Haiti or to the reforming of policy toward gays and lesbians in the military? The problem with treating each discrete issue in terms of winning or losing is that it obscures patterns not only of outcomes but also of approaches to Clinton’s presidential leadership. One purpose of this book is to step back from the day-to-day analyses of each discrete event and attempt to locate them in a broader theoretical context.

Understanding the Development of Clinton’s Presidential Style: Sources and Cautions

In some respects we have a great deal, but in other respects not nearly enough, information and analysis to help us develop our understandings of Bill Clinton. We now have data available from five different but accessible periods that are relevant to this book’s concerns: (1) Bill Clinton’s terms as governor of Arkansas, spanning the twelve-year period 1978–1980, 1982–1992; (2) the 1992 primary campaign, stretching from the meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council in the spring of 1991 through July 1992; (3) the presidential campaign, spanning July 1992-November 1992; (4) the period of transition from November 1992 to January 1993; and (5) the first twelve months of the Clinton administration.

In some respects, of course, data from each of these periods are limited. Nonetheless, although I use the word initial to characterize these analyses, this does not mean there is a paucity of data to make these preliminary inquiries. The last four periods cover more than two years of highly visible public events that were widely reported and analyzed. Clinton frequently and publicly responded to and commented on these events, first as a candidate and then as president. The highly public and overtly political nature of the Clinton presidency is one early characteristic of the administration that helps anchor these analyses. Indeed, Clinton shows few signs of developing a “hidden-hand” presidency (Greenstein, 1982).

Clinton as Governor

Surprisingly little emerged during the presidential campaign about Clinton’s performance as governor. One major problem for researchers interested in more systematic analyses of the development of Bill Clinton’s governing style is that his gubernatorial papers are not easily available to scholars. They remain in the custody of President Clinton at an undisclosed location.¹ Another problem the interested researcher encounters is that there are very few in depth scholarly analyses of Clinton’s performance as governor. One exception is Charles Allen’s (1991) analysis of Clinton’s educational policy as governor. It is one of the few analyses not undertaken by individuals with close personal connections and feelings about Clinton.

There are two reasons we can identify for this dearth of objective material. First, Arkansas is a small state in which the elites of the various sectors (governmental, legal, educational, financial, and so on) are very well known to one another and often have close personal as well as professional ties.² Second, Clinton’s approach to leadership reflects a very strong interpersonal emphasis. He has been known to travel many hours and more miles to meet small groups of voters in his home state. It is probably an exaggeration to say that everyone in Arkansas has met Clinton. But Clinton has made a three-decade-long point of meeting people of the state in his quest for political office and has been especially sensitive to meeting elites and opinion makers. That he knows and is known by, and in many cases has developed close personal relationships with, many of these individuals has complicated assessments of his tenure in office. Thus, good theoretically focused analyses of Clinton’s approach to leadership, his performance as governor in specific policy areas, and the implications of both for his performance as president remain to be accomplished.

Clinton as President

In examining the Clinton presidency at this stage, we must exercise prudence. The Clinton presidency is in its initial stages. Much of what we learn about a president’s approach to governing and political leadership is found in specific undertakings, and these are in the process of unfolding. Also, even though Clinton’s public behavior and commentary provide us with important preliminary data, public presidential behavior, however plentiful, cannot be the sole basis of analysis, because such behavior may well reflect as-yet-unknown strategic political calculation. Such behind-the-scenes calculations may modify our understanding of the meaning of an actor’s public behavior and thus its place in any framework for analysis.

The inner workings, debates, and understandings of presidential administrations ordinarily come from several different sources: (1) interviews with top administration officials both during (on and off the record) and after their terms of service, (2) memoirs of officials who served in the administration, (3) records of the deliberations of the administration both formal (e.g., transcripts of meetings) and informal (e.g., summary memos with or without participants’ notations). When these data emerge, they will doubtlessly enlarge our understanding of the Clinton presidency and may well modify the analyses of Clinton presented herein. Appropriately, therefore, we are still collecting data.

Uncovering emerging patterns does not guarantee that they will continue into and through a presidency. Changes in external circumstances may elicit new elements of a president’s psychology of require modifications of the old ones. (These circumstances can, of course, reinforce older psychological patterns.) Although we have substantial data, our initial theoretical impressions about what these data mean and where they fit in specific appraisals of Clinton’s presidency will be refined, modified, and perhaps abandoned as the Clinton administration both initiates and responds to events.

A president may also try to consciously discontinue unproductive patterns. Or, alternatively, a president may for political purposes at least appear to be doing so. Sometimes, as in the case of Clinton’s widely publicized and analyzed “shift to the center,” symbolized by his hiring of David Gergen, it is not yet clear whether we are witnessing the former or the latter.

As a general rule, however, it remains to be seen whether short-term politically motivated corrections can fundamentally alter presidential tendencies that reflect basic psychological patterns. For example, Sidney Blumenthal (1994), in interviewing Clinton about his first year in office, offered a number of areas in which the president learned from his experience. Among other lessons Clinton reported is the understanding that political capital is renewable and not fixed (32), his confidence that his vitality can carry him through his trials (33), and his recognition that at times he tried to do too much and became overscheduled (39). The last of these has been a perennial problem for Clinton since his days in Arkansas, and the implications of the others for how his presidency will evolve are at this point unclear. Given these facts, the analyses that follow can be offered only in the spirit of exploration, not validation.

The Clinton Presidency: Framing Questions, Dilemmas, and the Appraisal of Performance

The Clinton presidency faced a basic set of public questions at the outset regarding its real intentions, strategies, and competence. These questions persisted throughout the first year of his presidency. Clinton was elected president with a plurality of the votes cast while claiming a mandate for change. But almost all of his policy initiatives have been controversial, some extremely so. Why?

One reason is clearly related to emotional and political resistances to change. It is not only that systems in operation tend to build their own constituencies, although that is certainly true. It is also that even relationships that do not work well become preferable because their nature and limits are known. Another reason is that people question whether the change they wanted is the change they are getting. There is a concern that Clinton is not being entirely candid with the public either about the real costs of his policies or their impact, a concern fueled by the elastic estimates of the costs and savings of some administration initiatives.

There is also a related concern about Clinton’s attempt to change the language of political discourse. New government programs are touted as “investments,” payments to government entities such as health alliances are listed as “premiums,” and so on. Whether Clinton is really a “new democrat” and, if so, what that really means remain unanswered questions.

In his approach to ordering military intervention in Bosnia, in his policies toward Haiti, and in the difficulties he encountered in Somalia (Bolton, 1993), Clinton often said one thing and did another. Was this the cool strategic calculation of a tough-minded president, a reflection of indecision and ambivalence, or an attempt to accomplish goals without clearly examining the potential difficulties and costs (Wolfowitz, 1993)?

So, too, in many of Clinton’s domestic policies similar questions have been raised. Clinton has backed away from a number of his domestic campaign promises. Moreover, he has compromised or abandoned major parts of his policies initiatives. Is this the reflection of a mature pragmatic leader settling for what is obtainable, or does it reflect deeper inhibitions or concerns? How do we explain the puzzling discrepancies between his talents and performance? How will the public, other political actors, and professional analyzers of his administration come to view and evaluate the Clinton presidency?

The Psychological Context of the Clinton Presidency

The answers to these questions ultimately rest on two related factors. The first depends on the psychology of the president himself, his character, thinking, judgment, vision, and leadership skills. The second depends on his ability to

successfully resolve what I term the basic public dilemma. I define the basic public dilemma as a fundamental unresolved question concerning public psychology facing the president on taking office. It is not a specific question about public policy but rather the public’s psychological connections to its institutions, leaders, and political process. This unresolved public concern underlies and frames more specific policy debates.

Franklin D. Roosevelt faced one such dilemma in 1932 in deciding how the government would respond to potentially major national economic and social dislocations. For Lyndon Johnson in 1964, the question was whether and how the government should be the implementor of major programs designed to further the civil rights of and economic opportunities for disadvantaged and politically marginal groups. For Gerald Ford, in 1974 after Richard Nixon, and for Jimmy Carter in 1976, after the Johnson, Nixon, and Ford presidencies, the basic public dilemma was whether they could accomplish their policy purposes honestly as well as competently. For Ronald Reagan in 1980, the question revolved around the restoration of public faith in the office of president after the flawed presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and, as the public perceived them, the well-intentioned but ineffectual presidencies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Some presidents appreciate the nature of this major public dilemma and respond successfully, as did Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Others realize the dilemma but lack the skills to respond successfully, as was the case with Jimmy Carter. Still others, such as Lyndon Johnson, appreciate the major question but become distracted by other issues and wind up being unsuccessful.

What is the major public dilemma that faces Bill Clinton’s presidency? It is not Bosnia and it is not his policy toward Iraq or the former Soviet Union. It is not the problem of the deficit or trade or health care, as important as all these problems are. It is the dilemma of public trust in public policy. At base, this dilemma reflects a fundamental public question about whether government policies, even those that are constructive in intent, can be fair in formulation and successful in result.

Americans’ belief in the competence and fairness of government has been repeatedly challenged since the Great Society programs begun by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Policies of government intervention designed to redress economic and social imbalances, constructive and even laudable in intent, have often not realized their goals. Moreover, they have often resulted in unanticipated and unsatisfactory consequences. More recent government policies designed to let the market accomplish laudable social purposes have not been adequate to the task, as the persistence of problems of poverty, crime, and the environment attest.

Wilson McWilliams ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 The Psychological Context of the Clinton Presidency: A Framework for Analysis
• PART I Presidential Psychology—The 1992 Campaign: What Did We Learn?
• PART II Public Psychology—Leadership Style
• PART III The Process of Presidential Leadership
• PART IV Public Psychology and President Clinton
• PART V The Clinton Presidency and the Psychology of Public Policy: Dilemmas and Opportunities
• About the Book
• About the Editor and Contributors
• Index