|
 hile
the Clintons may well always be with us, it is quite possible that
their political legacy — "compassionate
conservatism,"
notwithstanding — may not be long for the world.
Al Gore's November/December defeat was clearly a repudiation of
one aspect of the legacy — its tawdry, forked-tongue, bare-knuckle
sensibility. However, last week's crushing defeat of Ehud Barak
by Ariel Sharon may mark the beginning of the end of overseas Clintonism.
In the last few years, Clinton-connected political consultants have
increasingly plied their wares internationally. While strategists
James Carville and Bob Shrum and pollster Stan Greenberg were obviously
in it for the money, any of their successes clearly gave Clinton
an influential hand in dealing with a newly elected foreign leader.
Furthermore, victories would enable Clinton to "import" the political
conceit of the re-invented Left, the so-called "third way."
The first success was obviously Great Britain. Out of power for
nearly two decades, "New Labour," led by charismatic, baby-boomer
Tony Blair, was, in 1997, even hungrier than the Democrats had been
over here four years before. The party swept into office with a
record-breaking parliamentary margin in the House of Commons. Blair
had laid the groundwork in the previous years, though. Clamping
down on his loony left and promising not to raise taxes any higher
than the Tory budget. Carville and Greenberg (as well as former
campaign and administration apparatchik George Stephanopolous) were
on hand, helping steer Blair to victory. In all honesty though,
the Conservatives were spent ideologically and weighed down by the
sorts of scandals that always made the old Benny Hill show
wicked fun.
The formula worked again in 1998 in Germany. Greenberg worked for
Gerhard Schroeder and the Social Democrats to defeat Helmut Kohl.
Again, Kohl had been in office for way too long — more than
twenty years — and had his own corruption charges to defend
(no sex scandals, please — we're German!)
Clinton International's next triumph was in Israel in 1999. Clinton
made no secret of the fact that he did not like Bibi Netanyahu.
Carville and Greenberg were dispatched to support Ehud Barak, which
they did. Netanyahu was turned aside.
Throw in the Lionel Jospin in France, and most of the large Western-style
democracies had left-leaning governments — many clearly stamped
with the Clinton imprint. However, the party may well be over. Gore
is gone — partly, some would argue, because Stanley Greenberg
urged that he move left and run a populist campaign.
Clinton and Barak both feverishly worked for a discernible "peace"
in the middle east — but for blatantly self-absorbed
| “The
parties of the right might learn lessons from the fall
of Gore and Barak and the stumbles of Blair.” |
|
political reasons. Barak realized that a clear conclusion to the
peace process was the only way he could win re-election; Clinton
wanted a legacy that would be more than just impeachment (ironically,
he and Hillary's déclassé White House departure has accomplished
just that). Clinton went so far as to videotape a phone conversation
for Barak's use in the days before the Israeli election — to
little avail.
Meanwhile the Blair government has, in recent months, become a bizarre
hybrid of two different American moderate Democrat politicians:
Clinton and California Governor Gray Davis. It's been beleaguered
by one scandal involving fundraising (hmm…sound familiar) and
lying (sounding really familiar?). In the former, one of
Blair's ministers has been embarrassed (taking the hit for Blair,
many say); in the latter, Blair was forced to dismiss his virtual
alter ego, Peter Mandelson. Mandelson is an interesting figure if
only because of his similarity to Blair's overseas ally.
As Anatole Kaletsky noted in the Times of London, "Mr. Mandelson's
biggest mistakes all flowed from his self-evident belief that he
was much cleverer than the people around him — especially the
lesser politicians and journalists whom he charmed or bullied to
advance his causes, but whom he always openly despised. It was Mr.
Mandelson's manipulative attitude to both politics and information
that ultimately led to his undoing…. His downfall was caused
not by his actions but by the way they were presented — by
the 'spin,' which he himself applied to try to distort the appearances
of mildly embarrassing but intrinsically trivial stories."
Clearly, Peter Mandelson is as much Bill Clinton's alter ego as
he is Tony Blair's.
Adding to this problem, Blair had to deal with an oil crisis last
fall. His handling — or lack thereof — has sent his popularity
plunging. Blair's dithering over cutting taxes on the price of 'petrol,'
has also exacerbated the issue. Wonderful to see the Brits getting
exercised over taxes. In any event, the combination of all of these
factors has suddenly put Labour in a remarkably awkward position
that could not have been foreseen a year ago. The Conservatives
have surged in the polls and should be well-positioned for some
serious gains in the elections scheduled for this spring.
Alas, the Tories have yet to develop their version of George W.
Bush yet. Current Conservative Party leader William Hague, a fierce
debater (as fans of "Prime Minister's Questions," televised here
on C-SPAN, will attest) just doesn't have quite the charismatic
manner to successfully challenge Tony Blair. Regardless of the outcome,
the bloom is clearly off New Labor. To Blair's credit, fathering
a child — with his own wife, no less! — was clearly a
more canny political move than, say, having an affair with a young
intern thirty years his junior. Odd, how the Brits can be so
traditional on occasion.
Blair may very well survive, but the bloom is off "New" Labour's
rose, and the politics of the "third way," may take yet another
hit — in reputation if nothing else. The question now is whether
the parties of the right might learn lessons from the fall of Gore
and Barak and the stumbles of Blair. Will George W. Bush be the
star for international conservative parties that Bill Clinton once
was for liberal ones?
|
