Monday, July 12, 2004

"My Life"

I have been reading "My Life" (Bill Clinton’s book.) It is gigantic, but I don’t find it difficult reading. And I don’t usually stick with a book if it doesn’t hold my interest. I’m only about a third of the way through it, because I don’t spend a lot of time curled up with a book in summer. And since I’m going into a period where my business will be doing events for the next seven weekends in a row (whew!)…well, I probably won’t get to the end of the book until the end of the summer. 

Mr. Clinton's memoir is, so far, a book about a smart kid, from anything but an aristocratic background; who sought out and took advantage of opportunities available to him.  A kid who, from a very young age, wanted to be in politics.  When other kids were aspiring to be doctors, astronauts, scientists...Bill Clinton set his mind on the political path.  He got a great education, lived in Europe for two years, came back home and jumped into Arkansas politics.  And became governor of the state at the age of 31.  Can you imagine?

The book has taught me a lot of things I didn’t know about politics, and about the south—Arkansas, at least. I don’t know if the tradition continues to this day, but it seems that, back in the sixties, when Mr. Clinton got his start in the political arena, politics was a fact of everyday life for people in Arkansas. Political tradition ran back to the Civil War, and beyond. Even the tiniest backwoods hamlets in the Ozarks had regular political meetings in local diners, billiard halls, or feed stores. Politics was as important a part of life as religion. By contrast, in suburban Chicago, where I grew up in the sixties and seventies, the attitude toward politics was that Mayor Daley was doing a fine job running "the city that worked," (and arguably, the entire state of Illinois), and everyday citizens didn’t need to worry about it. At election time, you lined up, cast your vote for the incumbent, and then went about your business.

In rural Arkansas, being a candidate meant getting out to the farthest corners of your electorate, reaching out your hand, and personally asking people for their votes. Showing up at those little political meetings in the one-horse towns, and getting the tiny power-wielders of those districts to get their followers in line behind you. And when a voter told you that he "wouldn’t piss in your ear if your brain was on fire," you looked him in the eye and asked him why. Bill Clinton learned how to listen to the voters, and how to create a deep, far-reaching political organization, during a decade and a half of running for office in Arkansas. He put that knowledge to work to help propel him to the presidency in 1992.

He also learned about negative campaigning. I know this is something we all hate about politics today, and I won’t accuse either party of being the first to draw blood. Suffice it to say that Clinton learned that if your opponent was going to hit below the belt, the only response was to hit back…HARD. Democrats, like me, would like to think that our party is above that. But you CAN’T be. Not if you want to win the office. Clinton became convinced of that, early on. He never ran for an office he didn’t want to WIN. You can only be a force for change if you WIN the election. This is one way the book has changed my perspective on politics. I'm not for viciously slandering another candidate, or doing anything illegal in order to "dig up dirt" to throw. But I understand now that, though I would have it otherwise, negative campaigning is a fact of life in this country, and a game that BOTH parties have to play to win.  I only wish that they would stick to facts--exploiting a candidate's record or business associations.  It seems to me that you could dig up enough TRUE dirt in anyone's background, without having to resort to lies or name-calling. 

I’m probably showing my massive naivete by writing this. I haven’t spent a lot of my time studying, or being involved in, the political process. I’ll digest the rest of this book, and then perhaps I’ll try to find a book written from a more conservative perspective, to contrast and compare.  Not that it will cause me to switch parties...but I think it's healthy to at least attempt to get a balanced point of view. If anyone has any suggestions what my next read should be, let me know.

10 comments:

  1. Regardless of how factual it is that both parties participate in negative tactics, I still believe the Democrats are far more gentlemanly and express far greater empathy for their opponent.  Never would a Democrat have squandered 60 millions dollars proving a president had oral sex with a consenting adult.  Clinton’s draft dodging NEVER went away, however, this very weekend it was reported that Bush’s military guard financial records accidentally were destroyed.  In addition, no one hardly ever takes advantage of the hypocrisy with how the chicken hawks feverishly engage in war.  Nor do the Democrats attack Condi Rice’s hypocrisy regarding her family’s unwillingness to participate in the civil right movement; all the while, she allows the implication.  Moreover, what about Joseph Wilson’s wife being exposed as a CIA agent, that is treason, technically Cheney or someone in his office should be facing the death penalty.  Again, it is okay to expose liberal minded CIA agents; no Democrat would have been that careless with a human life, even a Republican’s life.  Republicans are evil!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lisa, I'm glad you're enjoying the book.  

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hmm...trying to think of a book. I've read a few but it's been a while. I'll get back to you if I think of something.

    You know all this talk about hitting back even harder makes me wonder if the "right" didn't go after Clinton so viciously because they knew they only had one chance at a punch and had to take him down with it or he would come back harder and heavier on them. Seems horribly sordid. :-) ---Robbie

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kathleen--perhaps that is the problem...  Bill Clinton knew how to use negative campaigning, and he WON.  Too many Democrats are not giving as good as they get, taking the "moral high road," and they are getting CREAMED.  We can't afford to have them sitting on the sidelines while Republican after Republican gets voted into office by appealing to the lowest common denominator of the electorate.  We have to take off the velvet gloves, or be exterminated.  Lisa  :-]  

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wish I knew more about campaigns in decades and centuries past.  I have a feeling that mud-slinging isn't anything new, however tiresome it may be for the rest of us to watch.  

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lisa, perhaps my comments were too ambiguous, but I as well, believe the Democrats need to take off the gloves.  Especially, since because of their uncommonly sharp perception and wit, they will cream their opponent without much effort.  If you follow the pattern of everything the Republicans highlight as negative, it usually is quite lame, and it usually has to resort to ad hominen.  Have you seen the movie/documentary “The War Room”?  It is about Clinton’s 1992 campaign.  There is no way to watch this movie and not fall in love with James Carville.  He is great!  There was an incident during the 1992 campaign where the Clinton camp discovered that the Bush camp was getting their campaign material printed in some South America country using direct campaign funds, which is illegal.  The Clinton camp was worried about being too vicious, so they did not slaughter him with it. I would have.

    “A look inside the 1992 presidential race, D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hedgus' documentary The War Room explores the backstage side of national politics by examining the day-to-day operations of Bill Clinton's campaign staff. The behind-the-scenes leader of the group is James Carville, the demonstrative, charismatic campaign manager who relies on a plain-speaking manner and emotional appeals to motivate his subordinates. He is complemented by the quieter, smoother personality and photogenic looks of young press spokesman George Stephanopoulous. The filmmakers follow these two contrasting personalities from the January New Hampshire primary to Clinton's eventual victory, as they attempt to cling to an overall strategic plan while dealing with unforeseen problems and negative press, as their candidate is saddled with accusations of adultery and draft-dodging.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This entry has intrigued me.  This is not a book that I had any particular interest in reading but I may have to rethink that.  I am extremely politically naive...I really just see them all as a pack of liars...saying whatever is necessary to get elected.  I just hope that Kerry has the political savvy to do what it takes to get this current administration out of office.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm reading "My Life" as well, and as far as southern politics go, it's accurate for more than just Arkansas.  Politics is just as important as religion for some people, more so for just as many others.  The guy with the fifth grade education getting his morning coffee at the local mom and pop restaurant may know more about party politics than the savviest looking yuppie who just got relocated here for his job.  Politicians still go door to door asking for your vote, at least on the local and state rep and state senate level.  One of our current senators made a walk across Tennessee the hallmark of his first gubernatorial campaigns.  Shaking hands and listening is still important, and being willing to fight is essential. How you fight, though, determines the quality of the respect you receive.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for giving some info on the book.  I've been trying to figure out if I would enjoy it.  I have heard a few people say they were having a time getting in to it.  I don't follow politics too much.  But it would be interesting to read about his background.  Like your journal!  
    Sonya

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lisa, do you read Bill? http://journals.aol.com/billbinford54/BillsMusings/
    His wife just met Bill Clinton and he wrote her comments.

    ReplyDelete