Salazar, Zeus A., Pangulong ERAP.
(Manila: RPG Foundation, Inc., 2005), 577 pages.
From a college dropout to Mayor, Senator, Vice President, and President— truly the ascent of Joseph Estrada in Philippine politics is phenomenal. This distinction is heightened by the following facts— first, his election to the presidency by an astounding plurality (40% of the population), a feat unmatched in history; second, his sudden fall from power after serving for only about 18 months; third, the dubious distinction of undergoing an impeachment proceeding; and lastly, the reality that even while in prison with a plunder case against him, he is still vastly popular among the masses and possesses significant political influence. This stature has put the legacy of Estrada as the subject of a heightened political debate and has polarized the country. Against this backdrop, Estrada is shown through the lens of one of the country’s prominent historians, Dr. Z. Salazar.
In general, the book tries to defend the legacy of Estrada— that is, to justify his rule, rationalize his tragedy, and establish his place in history. Estrada is presented as a political leader deemed as the champion of the masses, enemy of the elite, and victim of a conspiracy. In doing so, Salazar used the classic Marxist framework of class conflict. He states that the dynamics of class conflict between the elite and the masses is the primary culprit in the tragedy of Estrada— it is typical of the elite to conspire against someone with opposing interest, or one outside their class. He submits that there seems to be an inherent connection between Estrada and Bonifacio, as the fate of the modern-day hero of the masses (Estrada) is somewhat similar to the fate of the original hero of the masses (Bonifacio)— both are victims of elite conspiracy. He insinuates further that Estrada’s fate is part and parcel of the long process of the political evolution of the Filipino masses— the history of their struggle from the time of the Spanish colonization to the present.
Salazar conventionally begins by describing Estrada’s family background. Estrada came from an upperclass family, where the siblings, with the exception of Estrada, are highly educated. Estrada’s academic inferiority, ironically, did not bring totally unfavorable consequences. It provided him the opportunity to establish links with the masses and to start his lifelong connection with them. Estrada discovered his niche—mingling not with rich kids, but with the poor kids in his neighborhood. The crossover to a life with the masses, as Salazar points out, would have another significant implication— it made Estrada evolve as a natural leader of the masses. Naturally, with his continuous exposure to the masses, the building blocks of his leadership qualities were also emerging.
Estrada’s attraction to the masses would also develop his penchant for defending the weak and the powerless. This tendency would be manifested early on. As Salazar notes, on several occasions, Estrada’s willingness to fight and even get beaten up while defending his helpless classmates and friends portrays Estrada as somebody who is willing to fight insurmountable odds and suffer the consequences of protecting the poor and marginalized.
Estrada’s schooling ended when he got into show business. That move not only earned him instant success and fame, but more importantly became the turning point of his life. As the leading man in his movies, he was portrayed as the champion of the underdog; it was the same role he played in childhood— always willing to fight for the needy and the weak. These portrayals would have a profound impact on the mind-set of the masses, as Estrada was seen as the genuine defender of the poor. This, in turn, would bring him enormous popularity, which would be the crucial ingredient that would help him rise in politics.
Estrada’s political journey started when he became Mayor of San Juan. His reign of 17 years ended when People Power 1 interrupted his stint as a local official and forced him to pursue a political career in the national arena. The transition was phenomenal— he became Senator, then Vice President, and ultimately President via a landslide electoral victory in 1998. In all the political positions Estrada had occupied, Salazar underscores his effective and unorthodox pro-poor style of leadership. For instance, as Mayor he legalized jueteng, and as Senator he voted against the retention of the American military bases.
Salazar interprets the ascent of Estrada to the presidency as the triumph of the masses. His success in the political arena, however, came at a price. As hinted by the author, the elite— traditional rich, intellectuals, businessmen, civil society, media, the church, and so forth— found it repugnant to accept a leadership that empowers the masses and does not do things compatible with the elite way of doing things. This attitude brought the elite together, conspiring to bring down the so-called government of the masses. The elite tried to destroy Estrada’s image by projecting his administration as corrupt, incompetent, and immoral. And in connivance with some factions in the military, the conspiracy attained their goal in People Power 2— by assembling a crowd and enticing the military to withdraw its allegiance to the legitimate government, thus forcing Estrada out of Malacañang and installing Vice President Arroyo as President. Salazar, however, stresses that despite the ouster, Estrada remains popular and supported by the masses— the undisputed “Ama ng masang Pilipino.”
The overall theme of the biography can aptly be stated thus: Estrada, the genuine leader of the masses, fell from power because of the conspiracy of the elite. This theme is amply demonstrated in the book. For instance, as leader of the masses:
“Dahil sa pakikipag-ugnay ni Erap sa kanyang mga kaibigan sa kanto at kalye, kinilala siya ng mga ito bilang kanilang lider at tagapagtanggol” p.14
Code of Conduct for Cabinet Members… “panunahing diin ay ang pagpapahalaga sa… mahihirap” p.192
“Sapul pa ng kabataan, lagi siyang pumapanig sa inaapi”, p.315
And as to the conspiracy of the elite:
“Ngayon pa lamang, sa loob ng isang partido ng elit, kinukudeta na si Erap” p.125
“Ang mga hayag na aksyon ng Oposisyon ay lalo pang ipagpapaibayo nina Ramos, Cory, Cardinal Sin, Macapagal-Arroyo at mga kaalyado sa pulitika, ‘civil society’, Makati Business Club at mga reteradong heneral. Ang pagkilos sa ilalim ay marahan, ngunit tiyak at maingat na binabalak sapagkat military ang ninanais makasama/maisama” p.299
Salazar asserts that Estrada is an extraordinary politician; he did not bow down to the elite, but instead risked everything for the poor. As Salazar argues, the bond between Estrada and the masses would be the embodiment of his fate. The notion is reinforced when the historian author deliberately linked Estrada to Andres Bonifacio, by maintaining the parallelism in their destiny— history repeating itself, “Tila pinagtiyap ng kapalaran, makikita ang pagkakahalintulad kapwa sa liderato ng Supremo at ng ‘Bida’,” p.220.
Salazar attempts to debunk certain popular misconceptions about Estrada. For instance, the author vehemently dispels the notion that Estrada is unintelligent, unfit to rule, and divisive to the country. To counteract the first, he presents comprehensive data to show that Estrada is a bright person. As for the second, he pinpoints the varied accomplishments of the short-lived Estrada administration. As for the last, the author vehemently denies that Estrada is a polarizing factor— Estrada did not and could not divide a society that had long been dichotomized by the cultural divide. Salazar further argues that Estrada tried to bridge the gap and unite society; ironically, he ended up the victim of such action.
Like most biographies, the book is basically a hagiography; Salazar made a substantial effort to remove the rough edges and tighten the screws, so to speak. Because of the author’s passionate quest to defend the legacy of Estrada, the biography ends up exhibiting a perceptibly strong bias for the subject. The intense bias might even tempt some readers to classify this book as an outright apology for Estrada, rather than an ordinary life story, as the propositions utilized in support of the theme appear to be selective and contestable.
For instance, the proposition that Estrada is pro-poor is highly debatable. Salazar did not significantly touch on Estrada’s many traits that cannot be considered pro-poor: for example, his love for expensive wines and luxurious mansions, and his penchant for womanizing and big-time gambling, and so forth. Hence, although he is identified with the poor, his lifestyle and taste demonstrate otherwise.
Second, the class conflict proposition vis-à-vis Estrada is simply untenable. As a fundamental critique against the framework, the divide between the elite and the masses is an overgeneralization. For instance, it denies the fact that Estrada was surrounded by people that can be categorized as elite, and his administration, like other administrations, also served the interest of the elite. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that the multitude of forces against Estrada did not come from a single segment, but comprised varied sectors of society— the rich, the middle class, the professionals, and the poor.
Third, the proposition that Estrada’s downfall was attributed primarily to elite conspiracy is an oversimplification. Salazar failed to emphasize other significant factors— the self-inflicted, consistent, and grave political blunders and scandals committed by Estrada and his administration are equally, if not more, damning. His actions gave the opposition the reason to unite, as well as the opening to go for the kill, so to speak.
Fourth, the proposition that associates Estrada with Andres Bonifacio is vague. The author failed to mention that there are many (if not more) differences between the two. For instance, Bonifacio as the Supremo was untarnished by corruption, while Estrada’s Presidency was embroiled throughout in charges of corruption. Furthermore, one would have reservations on whether Estrada would be happy to follow the destiny of Bonifacio all the way up to martyrdom.
Looking more deeply into this biography, one could read between the lines that it is insinuating a very provocative message—that Estrada will return since he is a vital cog in the solution to the crisis of this country:
Kaugnay ng kasalukuyang yugto ng pulitikang Pilipino, magbabalik ang LAWIN, ang simbolo ng BAYANI”, p.526
“Gayunpaman, anuman ang kanilang gawin, bahagi si ERAP ng solusyon sa krisis ng sistema ng ating estado at lipunan”, p.527
Although “the return of ERAP” could mean many things ranging from outright return to political power whether as President again or as kingmaker (helping his allies get elected to political positions, or supporting “friendly forces” to gain control of government via extraconstitutional means) to mere acquittal in the plunder case, it surely conveys a message of hope to his supporters— that what happened to Estrada is not the end; indeed there is still the “unfinished chapter of ERAP.” Also accompanying this message is a menacing warning to the “usurper” Arroyo government that it will have to reckon with his redemption. The message also suggests that only the return of Estrada will put an end to the political divide and bring about political stability. Here, one can only think that Estrada is being portrayed, just like in his action movies, as a Messiah overcoming political persecution and returning to save the people.
Although Salazar presents the biography as an objective historical narration, it appears to be defeated by the political agenda of the book. The presentation is seemingly based on a specific prism, where certain facts are ignored or selectively chosen. To put a semblance of balance to this apparently propaganda material, examining other reading materials before or after reading this biography is recommended to dilute its fervent subjectivity.
Lastly, the launching of this book can also be seen as in concert with other things, such as ERAP cds, documentary movie, and so forth. This hints that a deliberate battle to ensure Estrada’s place in history is ongoing, and this biography spearheads the quest to establish Estrada’s legacy to the future. Indeed, the biography cannot be separated from the broader context of contemporary Philippine politics. With the forthcoming midterm elections in 2007, the presidential elections in 2010, and the near conclusion of the plunder case it is imperative for Estrada to remain relevant. Thus, the book is one effective way of maintaining Estrada’s political significance at present and beyond.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Book Review: Clinton, Bill, My Life.
Clinton, Bill, My Life.
(New York: Random House, Inc., 2005),
2 volumes, 1342 pages.
My Life is a very long and detailed autobiography of William Jefferson Clinton. It traces his political journey in two volumes— the early years and the presidential years, respectively. In the first, Clinton narrates his early life, from birth to winning the presidency; in the second, he describes the events during his presidency.
Conventionally, Clinton begins his narration with a general description of his birth and family background. He points out that even before he was born, tragedy had already struck his family, the untimely death of his father when his mother was still pregnant with him. The absence of his biological father will leave a life-long impression on him. As Clinton puts it—“all my life I have been hungry to fill in the blanks.” The tragedy, however, would be mitigated by his fortune to have a loving mother and grandparents. Their character would profoundly influence him: the independence and toughness of his mother in dealing with the harsh side of life, and the nondiscriminatory attitude of his grandfather toward blacks despite his being part of the rural South.
Clinton also underscores the hidden problem of his family— dealing with an alcoholic and abusive stepfather. He says that living with his stepfather was tough, not only for him and his mother but more so for his young stepbrother. The problem, he believes left a lasting scar on his stepbrother, particularly who later on would struggle with the problem of drug abuse. He seems to suggest that, like most families, his is not perfect.
Clinton also highlights that unlike most American Presidents he had humble beginnings, having come from an ordinary working class family. His origin seems to explain his greater sympathy for and better understanding of the working middle class. Closeness to that class would be very handy throughout his political career.
Clinton takes his readers along in his educational journey from the lower school to Oxford and Yale. He discusses and describes at length what he learned from his teachers and professors that would have implications for his life as a person and politician. Most of his learning would further reinforce his love of politics. His serious involvement in politics would come early; in fact, in his college years he would juggle active political participation in the Democratic Party and his studies. He points out that the network of friends that he built throughout his years of studying proved very helpful to his political career from its start and up to the White House. Moreover, Clinton relates with relish that in Yale, he get not only a law degree but also the love of his life— Hillary.
As regards his first major political post— as Governor of the state of Arkansas— he recalls the grueling campaigns, the dynamics of party politics, the thrill of winning, the agony of defeat, and most of all, the lessons learned and the arduous march to retrieve the governorship. Here, he articulates one of his basic tenets for political survival— good policies must be accompanied by good politics!
Clinton describes in detail most of the major programs and policies of his government that he, as President, strongly defended as the “right” policy. Since in politics, compromise is usually needed to move policy, he admits to the limitation of his administration in pushing for progressive change. In particular, Clinton claims unequivocally that the actions of his government were severely restricted by what he and Hillary call “the vast conspiracy of ultra-right conservatives.” His government literally struggled to survive the onslaught of ultra-right conservatives. The onslaught culminated in his impeachment via the Lewinsky scandal. Although Clinton admits his mistake (and shows remorse for it), he makes it very clear that his “personal sin” was miniscule compared with the grave sins of the Republicans, e.g., the Iran-Contra and the Watergate scandals. Moreover, he points out that were it not for the selfish agenda (which is to boot him out of office) of the ultra-right conservatives led by Gingrich and Starr, the impeachment would not have prospered— they did it not for anything else, but because they could!
In the end, Clinton asserts that his presidency was successful despite the presence of forces dedicated to destroy him. He strengthened the United States by reinvigorating the economy and fortifying her global leadership. He strengthened the Democratic Party by ensuring the party’s continued clout beyond his presidency. Hence, for him, his achievements not only gained him popularity among the American people, but more importantly won the battle against the ultra-right conservatives— his achievements thus far outweighed, the “misdeeds” of his administration.
After his presidency— especially after President G. W. Bush, a Republican, won the controversial election over Vice President A. Gore— Clinton hints that, first, since the ultra-right conservatives are rising in government (he observes the Republicans moving to the far right), therefore, there is a new fight for the Democratic Party; second, that Hillary is bound to enter politics and might aim for the White House; and third, that like former President J. Carter, he will not sink down to oblivion, but instead will continue to devote his time to serve the American people in any capacity.
Like most autobiographies, this book seeks to etch an indelible record of the author’s legacy for posterity. From beginning to end, Clinton exerts substantial efforts to remove the rough edges and tighten the screws, so to speak. He makes a very convincing effort to clarify and justify his policies, programs, and decisions, including rationalizing to counteract criticisms. Clinton presents himself as a political leader that persevered, struggled, made mistakes but, in the end, won over great odds. Hence, the central thrust of the book is really to picture him as a good leader of the American people, his party, and the world.
First and foremost, Clinton presents himself as a good President who made a difference by promoting progressive changes that profoundly benefited ordinary Americans. The benefits are very clear from the economic gains made by his administration— as he argues, his administration “sparked the longest economic expansion in our history, produced four budgetary surpluses in a row, and enabled us to reduce the national debt by hundreds of billions of dollars.” Benefits are also seen on other fronts— his seemingly never-ending quest to promote civil rights and equality, employment, education, health care, and the environment. Clinton believes that a good President must use the resources of the state not only to give material benefits but, more importantly, to develop individuals— to empower them for most opportunities that would come their way. As he says, “the main point of my work was to give people a chance to have better stories.”
In enumerating the achievements of his administration, Clinton unequivocally made them more impressive by stressing that his government rectified the “mistakes” of the previous Reagan government, particularly in terms of huge debts, spending, and tax cuts; and that his presidency had to fight tooth and nail to prevail. He particularly points to the ultra-right conservative republicans who, he believes, led the conspiracy to bring down his presidency. To reinforce the conspiracy claim, he argues that the subject of the impeachment against him was nowhere near the Republican Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandals.
To establish his stature as good world leader, Clinton demonstrates the vastness of his administration’s achievements in the realm of international politics, particularly in the spread of liberal democratic values, in promoting cooperation among states, and in advancing issues in poverty, literacy, health, and the environment. For instance, he takes great pride in having planted the seeds of peaceful engagements in the Middle East— specifically, the Israel-Palestinian conflict— which he hopes would serve as the groundwork for a permanent resolution in the future. With regard to promoting democracy, he underscores important points— one is that his government sincerely helped struggling democratic countries (e.g., saving Mexico from total economic meltdown); another is the institutionalization of global cooperation as the basic framework for international actions. Clinton also maintains that his foreign policy advanced the United States well in a new global milieu, characterized by globalization, interdependence, and information technology age. Tacitly, he sends the message that, in his watch, the United States was seen as a truly genuine leader of the world.
As a good party leader, Clinton spearheaded the Democratic Party’s long and hard march to capture congress. He takes credit not only for revitalizing the party, but also for making it stable even against the onslaught of the ultra-right conservative Republicans and their allies. He notes in the epilogue that, despite the dominance of the Republican Party in congress under the leadership of President G. W. Bush, the Democratic Party remains strong. The analysis seems prophetic, for in the recent midterm elections, the Democratic Party gained control of both houses of congress (of course thanks to the debacle of President Bush’s policy in Iraq). Clinton observes that the “Democrats can come back, not by moving hard to the left, but by looking forward, with a clear vision for the future and good ideas to realize it, a strong security posture and better tactics.” He predicts that the Democratic Party is the party of the future, because slowly but surely Americans are becoming more open to the more progressive and liberal views of the party, and because the Republican Party is continuing its drift to the far right.
Clinton reiterates many times that the ultimate measure of a good political leader is whether his political ideas, policies, and decisions have a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. However, he puts forward the proviso, that a good leader is not a perfect leader! He implies that mistakes or blunders are part and parcel of the leadership process. What is important to him is the ability to reflect, rectify, and bounce back. With obvious reference to the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton emphasizes that a personal sin committed by a public servant should not be used as the sole measure for judging a leader; surely, the goodness or badness of a political leader cannot be judged solely on the basis of his worst or weakest moment. He seems to imply, moreover, that the said scandal in no way diminishes the achievements the government made under his leadership.
Another thrust of the book, although a little bit subtle, is to lay down a good staging ground for the political ambition of his wife. Surely, the book strengthens Hillary Clinton’s quest to be the first female President of the United States. For instance, throughout the book Clinton not only strongly defends his presidency, but also enthusiastically defends and highlights the works and achievements of Hillary. He describes Hillary as a woman with “a big brain, a good heart, better organizational skills than I did, and political skills that were nearly as good as mine.” In addition, the deliberate and laborious research made to have a myriad of names of people, combining this with mostly favorable comments about most of them (especially the blacks and immigrants), strongly suggests a political agenda. In the epilogue, Clinton stresses that, as it was in his run for the presidency, today there is a need for change! He emphatically states that the mistakes of the Reagan administration have been repeated by the Bush administration, thus implying that political change is needed in the 2008 presidential elections.
Without a doubt, the book is a very valuable piece of literature in political leadership. It is not only a story of the development and growth of a political leader; it is more about what a political elite must learn to survive and win in today’s harsh political arena where political enemies are sometimes ruthless. Clinton believes that a leader who sincerely pushes for change would effortlessly create enemies. As a guide to political practitioners, he shares tons and tons of valuable “lessons” in politics. The more prominent ones are the following.
•The basic rule in politics—“you can have good policy without good politics, but you can’t give the people good government without both.”
•The rule on change— “everyone is for change in general, but against it in particular, when they themselves have to change.”
•The politics of divide— “us versus them” can work if the people are discontented and insecure.
•The best strategy against harsh political attacks— to respond immediately and in kind.
•The limitation of change— the political system “can absorb only so much change at once.”
Finally, in explaining his political success, Clinton implies that his dedication and determination are huge factors. The claim, however, is not absolute; he tones it down by admitting that some decisions and small actions taken by other people, some accidental events, and lost opportunities have also significantly contributed in defining his political journey. He believes that life is usually “shaped by the opportunities you turn down as much as those you take up.”
(New York: Random House, Inc., 2005),
2 volumes, 1342 pages.
My Life is a very long and detailed autobiography of William Jefferson Clinton. It traces his political journey in two volumes— the early years and the presidential years, respectively. In the first, Clinton narrates his early life, from birth to winning the presidency; in the second, he describes the events during his presidency.
Conventionally, Clinton begins his narration with a general description of his birth and family background. He points out that even before he was born, tragedy had already struck his family, the untimely death of his father when his mother was still pregnant with him. The absence of his biological father will leave a life-long impression on him. As Clinton puts it—“all my life I have been hungry to fill in the blanks.” The tragedy, however, would be mitigated by his fortune to have a loving mother and grandparents. Their character would profoundly influence him: the independence and toughness of his mother in dealing with the harsh side of life, and the nondiscriminatory attitude of his grandfather toward blacks despite his being part of the rural South.
Clinton also underscores the hidden problem of his family— dealing with an alcoholic and abusive stepfather. He says that living with his stepfather was tough, not only for him and his mother but more so for his young stepbrother. The problem, he believes left a lasting scar on his stepbrother, particularly who later on would struggle with the problem of drug abuse. He seems to suggest that, like most families, his is not perfect.
Clinton also highlights that unlike most American Presidents he had humble beginnings, having come from an ordinary working class family. His origin seems to explain his greater sympathy for and better understanding of the working middle class. Closeness to that class would be very handy throughout his political career.
Clinton takes his readers along in his educational journey from the lower school to Oxford and Yale. He discusses and describes at length what he learned from his teachers and professors that would have implications for his life as a person and politician. Most of his learning would further reinforce his love of politics. His serious involvement in politics would come early; in fact, in his college years he would juggle active political participation in the Democratic Party and his studies. He points out that the network of friends that he built throughout his years of studying proved very helpful to his political career from its start and up to the White House. Moreover, Clinton relates with relish that in Yale, he get not only a law degree but also the love of his life— Hillary.
As regards his first major political post— as Governor of the state of Arkansas— he recalls the grueling campaigns, the dynamics of party politics, the thrill of winning, the agony of defeat, and most of all, the lessons learned and the arduous march to retrieve the governorship. Here, he articulates one of his basic tenets for political survival— good policies must be accompanied by good politics!
Clinton describes in detail most of the major programs and policies of his government that he, as President, strongly defended as the “right” policy. Since in politics, compromise is usually needed to move policy, he admits to the limitation of his administration in pushing for progressive change. In particular, Clinton claims unequivocally that the actions of his government were severely restricted by what he and Hillary call “the vast conspiracy of ultra-right conservatives.” His government literally struggled to survive the onslaught of ultra-right conservatives. The onslaught culminated in his impeachment via the Lewinsky scandal. Although Clinton admits his mistake (and shows remorse for it), he makes it very clear that his “personal sin” was miniscule compared with the grave sins of the Republicans, e.g., the Iran-Contra and the Watergate scandals. Moreover, he points out that were it not for the selfish agenda (which is to boot him out of office) of the ultra-right conservatives led by Gingrich and Starr, the impeachment would not have prospered— they did it not for anything else, but because they could!
In the end, Clinton asserts that his presidency was successful despite the presence of forces dedicated to destroy him. He strengthened the United States by reinvigorating the economy and fortifying her global leadership. He strengthened the Democratic Party by ensuring the party’s continued clout beyond his presidency. Hence, for him, his achievements not only gained him popularity among the American people, but more importantly won the battle against the ultra-right conservatives— his achievements thus far outweighed, the “misdeeds” of his administration.
After his presidency— especially after President G. W. Bush, a Republican, won the controversial election over Vice President A. Gore— Clinton hints that, first, since the ultra-right conservatives are rising in government (he observes the Republicans moving to the far right), therefore, there is a new fight for the Democratic Party; second, that Hillary is bound to enter politics and might aim for the White House; and third, that like former President J. Carter, he will not sink down to oblivion, but instead will continue to devote his time to serve the American people in any capacity.
Like most autobiographies, this book seeks to etch an indelible record of the author’s legacy for posterity. From beginning to end, Clinton exerts substantial efforts to remove the rough edges and tighten the screws, so to speak. He makes a very convincing effort to clarify and justify his policies, programs, and decisions, including rationalizing to counteract criticisms. Clinton presents himself as a political leader that persevered, struggled, made mistakes but, in the end, won over great odds. Hence, the central thrust of the book is really to picture him as a good leader of the American people, his party, and the world.
First and foremost, Clinton presents himself as a good President who made a difference by promoting progressive changes that profoundly benefited ordinary Americans. The benefits are very clear from the economic gains made by his administration— as he argues, his administration “sparked the longest economic expansion in our history, produced four budgetary surpluses in a row, and enabled us to reduce the national debt by hundreds of billions of dollars.” Benefits are also seen on other fronts— his seemingly never-ending quest to promote civil rights and equality, employment, education, health care, and the environment. Clinton believes that a good President must use the resources of the state not only to give material benefits but, more importantly, to develop individuals— to empower them for most opportunities that would come their way. As he says, “the main point of my work was to give people a chance to have better stories.”
In enumerating the achievements of his administration, Clinton unequivocally made them more impressive by stressing that his government rectified the “mistakes” of the previous Reagan government, particularly in terms of huge debts, spending, and tax cuts; and that his presidency had to fight tooth and nail to prevail. He particularly points to the ultra-right conservative republicans who, he believes, led the conspiracy to bring down his presidency. To reinforce the conspiracy claim, he argues that the subject of the impeachment against him was nowhere near the Republican Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandals.
To establish his stature as good world leader, Clinton demonstrates the vastness of his administration’s achievements in the realm of international politics, particularly in the spread of liberal democratic values, in promoting cooperation among states, and in advancing issues in poverty, literacy, health, and the environment. For instance, he takes great pride in having planted the seeds of peaceful engagements in the Middle East— specifically, the Israel-Palestinian conflict— which he hopes would serve as the groundwork for a permanent resolution in the future. With regard to promoting democracy, he underscores important points— one is that his government sincerely helped struggling democratic countries (e.g., saving Mexico from total economic meltdown); another is the institutionalization of global cooperation as the basic framework for international actions. Clinton also maintains that his foreign policy advanced the United States well in a new global milieu, characterized by globalization, interdependence, and information technology age. Tacitly, he sends the message that, in his watch, the United States was seen as a truly genuine leader of the world.
As a good party leader, Clinton spearheaded the Democratic Party’s long and hard march to capture congress. He takes credit not only for revitalizing the party, but also for making it stable even against the onslaught of the ultra-right conservative Republicans and their allies. He notes in the epilogue that, despite the dominance of the Republican Party in congress under the leadership of President G. W. Bush, the Democratic Party remains strong. The analysis seems prophetic, for in the recent midterm elections, the Democratic Party gained control of both houses of congress (of course thanks to the debacle of President Bush’s policy in Iraq). Clinton observes that the “Democrats can come back, not by moving hard to the left, but by looking forward, with a clear vision for the future and good ideas to realize it, a strong security posture and better tactics.” He predicts that the Democratic Party is the party of the future, because slowly but surely Americans are becoming more open to the more progressive and liberal views of the party, and because the Republican Party is continuing its drift to the far right.
Clinton reiterates many times that the ultimate measure of a good political leader is whether his political ideas, policies, and decisions have a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. However, he puts forward the proviso, that a good leader is not a perfect leader! He implies that mistakes or blunders are part and parcel of the leadership process. What is important to him is the ability to reflect, rectify, and bounce back. With obvious reference to the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton emphasizes that a personal sin committed by a public servant should not be used as the sole measure for judging a leader; surely, the goodness or badness of a political leader cannot be judged solely on the basis of his worst or weakest moment. He seems to imply, moreover, that the said scandal in no way diminishes the achievements the government made under his leadership.
Another thrust of the book, although a little bit subtle, is to lay down a good staging ground for the political ambition of his wife. Surely, the book strengthens Hillary Clinton’s quest to be the first female President of the United States. For instance, throughout the book Clinton not only strongly defends his presidency, but also enthusiastically defends and highlights the works and achievements of Hillary. He describes Hillary as a woman with “a big brain, a good heart, better organizational skills than I did, and political skills that were nearly as good as mine.” In addition, the deliberate and laborious research made to have a myriad of names of people, combining this with mostly favorable comments about most of them (especially the blacks and immigrants), strongly suggests a political agenda. In the epilogue, Clinton stresses that, as it was in his run for the presidency, today there is a need for change! He emphatically states that the mistakes of the Reagan administration have been repeated by the Bush administration, thus implying that political change is needed in the 2008 presidential elections.
Without a doubt, the book is a very valuable piece of literature in political leadership. It is not only a story of the development and growth of a political leader; it is more about what a political elite must learn to survive and win in today’s harsh political arena where political enemies are sometimes ruthless. Clinton believes that a leader who sincerely pushes for change would effortlessly create enemies. As a guide to political practitioners, he shares tons and tons of valuable “lessons” in politics. The more prominent ones are the following.
•The basic rule in politics—“you can have good policy without good politics, but you can’t give the people good government without both.”
•The rule on change— “everyone is for change in general, but against it in particular, when they themselves have to change.”
•The politics of divide— “us versus them” can work if the people are discontented and insecure.
•The best strategy against harsh political attacks— to respond immediately and in kind.
•The limitation of change— the political system “can absorb only so much change at once.”
Finally, in explaining his political success, Clinton implies that his dedication and determination are huge factors. The claim, however, is not absolute; he tones it down by admitting that some decisions and small actions taken by other people, some accidental events, and lost opportunities have also significantly contributed in defining his political journey. He believes that life is usually “shaped by the opportunities you turn down as much as those you take up.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)