DISCLAIMER: The following column, despite its bilateral conversational nature, is in no way connected to the "C Says, P Says" series, or any parodies thereof. Any resemblance to said column is purely incidental, and would be circumstantial in a court of law.
JOE: So I was thinking about Reagan the other day ...
LEE: Yeah, and I was thinking about Slick Willie ...
JOE: No, not him, the other one. The Gipper. The one who crushed Carter and Mondale and talked trash to the Soviet Union.
LEE: Oh yeah, he's the one whose name Republicans invoke when tax-and-spend liberals attack; they just go, "Bring out the Gipper ..."
JOE: Yeah, that one. But really, if you think about it, can you actually see anyone invoking Slick Willie that way after 2000? He just doesn't have Reagan's style or vision, or even guts, come to think of it.
LEE: Lots of people worship Reagan's revolutionary supply-side economics, but Clinton doesn't get quite such a following; Clinton gets less flack for causing problems, but then again, he gets less "brownie points" for vision.
JOE: But that is Clinton's problem; he's so afraid to do something wrong that he won't take the risks you need to do something right. It wasn't that Reagan was perfect (witness huge budget deficit), but he had the "big picture" in place.
LEE: But you know, they both knew how to use the media. Clinton's empire has always been very poll-driven, he seems to want to reconcile everybody's problems ("I feel your pain"). Clinton's like a cathartic shrink to us.
JOE: Reagan was ... well, the Beaver. He had that imperial aura about him and he created it by minimizing his appearances. When he did appear, he was always seen as purposeful, precise, the hero out to royally kick butt ...
LEE: Well, Beaver or no Beaver, the Gipper still had some pretty raunchy scandals...
JOE: Oh, COME ON! You want to talk about raunchy scandals, you need to talk about a guy by the name of William Jefferson Clinton. Where do I start? Whitewater, Nannygate, Paula Jones, Vince Foster, the Lincoln bedroom ...
LEE: Yeah, I guess so. But still, some of the scandals match up pretty nicely: take Hillary Clinton's channeling of Eleanor Roosevelt's spirit, that's kinda like ...
JOE: ... like Nancy Reagan asking Jean Dixon for astrological advice on state matters. True. But what about Clinton's affairs? There's no contest -- Bill wins hands down.
LEE: Hold up now, Nancy had her little fling with Sinatra, right ("I've got the White House under my skin")? I won't EVEN speculate about Franky's Mafia connections infiltrating Washington ... forget Iran-Contra, ya wanna talk about REAL arms-trading?
JOE: Yeah, well ... on from presidential spouses to the presidents themselves. What's crucial in government and history is your long-term effect, which is why Clinton's so obsessed about his "legacy" right now, whatever it is. Clinton's less important, in the public view, than Reagan was during his two terms.
LEE: Yeah, Reagan opposed the Soviet "Evil Empire" and made clear our unity against an external threat, but Clinton, without the "benefit" of something so simple, had to direct our fight against the "enemy within."
JOE: Besides, Russia is a much lesser threat today, so Clinton's policy towards them is pretty stable and uninteresting. Where he does have the chance to show some leadership is with the OTHER communist power (China), and so far he's failed to do that. China understands that as far as Clinton's administration is concerned, they can literally get away with murder without much conflict.
LEE: Speaking of conflict, I see one between the 1980s and 1990s. Reagan embodied the "me" generation, with corporate greed and negligent debt accumulation. Clinton personifies the "we" 1990s, with tax breaks for the middle class and responsible budget-balancing and bipartisanship.
JOE: I disagree. There really is no conflict. It's just that the focus on "me" has become more personal and obvious: "What about my tax breaks, my children's education?" There is no "we," really, or when there is, it's coming from special-interest groups that few people can identify with. That's why Clinton has so much appeal for some people. They see him as Psychiatrist in Chief, the one who will help them talk it through and work it out and make the bad Republican hobgoblins go away. The selfishness never left; it just became more fundamental, less materialistic.
LEE: To wrap this up, let's talk about their legacies. Reagan's got a building devoted to him in DC, but can you see Clinton getting one?
JOE: It's a little too early to judge Clinton's legacy, but if ever he gets a building, it's got to capture his ambivalence, the constant attempt to be all things to all people. One positive thing is that he's less poll-driven now, so maybe he'll be more free to do what he feels is right. Who knows? Maybe he can even get a good legal consulting job after he retires ... but that's another story.
