Jay Ambrose: Assessing the Clinton legacy

Wait a second. Let me double-check my notes. Oops, sorry. Davis lost big while a politically inexperienced actor glided home.

My notes don't stop there. In fact, they tell me that about the last thing candidates should pray for is to have Brother Bill show up with sermons favoring their victory. Ask some of those who got the help and tasted defeat, such as Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in the gubernatorial race in Maryland.

If you did think the Clinton touch was political gold, it's possible you subscribe to the legend that goes something like this: This brilliant, humane leader from Arkansas has political skills unseen since the death of FDR and engendered peace and prosperity during two presidential terms despite the unscrupulous assaults of his implacable enemies. All of that is about as true as Gray Davis being carried on Clinton's back to victory on California's election day.

I don't make that observation as a Clinton hater. Now that some of us have noticed the Bush haters out there, there are those responding that the phenomenon is excusable because, after all, there were Clinton haters, and it's apparently their philosophy that two wrongs make a right.

There were indeed Clinton haters, but I actually liked Clinton. I met him a couple of times and found him charming, and while I considered it more than a little disturbing that he committed perjury while president, I never argued for his removal from office. I even think he had some virtues as president. After some early setbacks, he didn't try to do too much, and at least on some issues (certainly not all), that strikes me as an appropriate role for the federal government: quiescence.

For those interested in the truth about Clinton, as opposed to those happy to emote whatever verdict their ideology dictates, I recommend reading Rich Lowry's book, "Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years." Lowry, it happens, is editor of the National Review, which is a conservative magazine. You may suppose the book consequently will be a right-wing rant. The truth is, the book is balanced, almost disappointingly so for those of us who occasionally enjoy a right-wing rant. The tone is downright scholarly even as we learn what a failure Clinton finally was.

I can touch on just a few of the book's points here. A chief one debunks the fiction that Clinton was responsible for the roaring economy of the '90s. He himself had made the economy seem worse than it was during his first run for president, and then was a beneficiary of Reagan-era tax cuts and the efficiency moves of American corporations. The deficit closed not because of his policies or those of Republicans in Congress, but because a growing economy was producing so much revenue.

Clinton should not get credit for slowing crime rates. That was accomplished by such factors as courts sending more bad guys to prison, thereby getting them off the streets where they could do their violent thing, and improving police performance. Welfare reform, Lowry reminds us, was forced on Clinton by Republicans in Congress.

Terrorism? Clinton's style, in the face of challenge, was retreat; the Somalia withdraw is one example. It is at least conceivable the United States could have gotten hold of Osama bin Laden had his administration been more alert and aggressive.

Does any of this matter in more than an academic sense at this point?

Absolutely. Clinton is still involving himself in politics and national and international issues, and the way one understands his administration will inform the way one understands the current administration. You don't have to hate Clinton to get it that his administration actually let this country down in important ways, and that we may be paying the price for a long, long time.