The year was 1993.
Washington was all a buzz. And
at that moment, I was privileged to shake the hand of the one man who was
causing the stir. No, not Kenny G. While it’s true that I had heard him perform
a few minutes earlier and many of the folks in the room had the saxophone on
our minds, we had come to meet another, lesser, saxophone player named William
Jefferson Clinton. And “we” were the
members of the so-called Saxophone Club – donors to Clinton’s campaign.
That evening, a lot of concepts had been running
through my mind. Political
centrism. Adultery. Policy-wonkism. Oratory.
The Democratic Party. Supreme
extroversion. Supreme
self-confidence. Supreme campaigning. I had no idea how Clinton would govern, but I
knew how he had campaigned. He seemed to
adore the whole process. He loved
people (whether in big or small groups), analyzing public policy issues, and
figuring out a way to explain his analysis on the campaign trail. He was only the second American politician
in my adult life who seemed to be a natural – a Hall of Famer, as it were. Whereas the first, Ronald Reagan, came from
that “other” party, Clinton was one of my guys.
And in early 1993, years before he would disgrace himself with “that
woman,” Clinton made us Democrats proud.
Looking back at the situation more than two decades
later, I have mixed feelings about Bill Clinton. I guess I still kind of like him – in fact,
I figure he’d make a better President than any other American politician I can
think of, but there are a few things about him that stick in my craw. One of those is the motto that was used in
his War Room during the 1992 campaign.
That room came to be associated with guys like James Carville, George Stephanopoulos,
and Paul Begala. Wunderkinds all! And their motto is now considered political
gold: “It’s the Economy, Stupid.” According to conventional wisdom, Clinton’s
minions hit the nail on the head.
Americans care about one thing – their wallets. Here, on the west side of the Junior Pond, we
can barely even name the continents across the sea, let alone the
countries. Who cares what happens
there? What matters is whether here in
the Promised Land, the Dow is up, the unemployment rate is down, and the inflation
rate is non-existent.
In 1994, a year after I shook Clinton’s hand, genocide
consumed roughly 800,000 Rwandans. That’s
almost 300 times as many as the people who died in 9/11. What did the Clinton Administration do to
stop that genocide? Not much.
The Administration figured that this genocide didn’t have much to do
with the American economy, and there weren’t a lot of big-time political donors
from Rwanda. According to conventional
wisdom, wasting political capital on such a conflict would have been, what is the
word, “interventionist.” As President Number 1 put it, "It is our
true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the
foreign world." President Number
3, not wanting to be outdone, made the same point with just a little more rhetorical
flair: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling
alliances with none." I believe
the key word there was “commerce.” It’s
the economy, stupid. Always has been, always
will be!
Well, maybe not.
I’ll grant that Carville, Begala and George the Short captured properly
the American electorate of 1992 … or 1792, for that matter. But to quote another great American, “The Times
They Are a-Changin’.” Gaza. Isis.
Ebola. Putin. Netanyahu.
Hamas. Ukraine. Syria.
Iraq. Assad. No longer are these foreign concepts to
Americans. With one simple word, a
whole series of thoughts rush in. Now,
try to do the same with domestic issues.
Here goes: Obamacare. Hillary.
Tea-party. Not nearly as long a
list, is it?
Do me this favor next week. Turn on Fox News or MSNBC in the evening when
they’re not talking about one of the international crises du jour and are instead
focusing on domestic issues.
Immediately, the discussion will seem incredibly petty. Plato once compared people who are unschooled
in philosophy to troglodytes who are looking at shadows on their cave’s
wall. And truly, after you listen to a
news report about the incredibly important things going on around the world, it’s
hard not to listen to a discussion about domestic issues without thinking that
the reporters or talking heads are, indeed, troglodytes. Right now,
the world is facing threats from (a) an out-of-control killer virus, (b)
a bully who wants to resurrect the old Soviet Union, (c) a never-ending war in
the Holy Land that periodically ensconces the residents of that area in a
combination of hatred and victimization, (d) a band of terrorists who wish to
gobble up more and more territory and use it as a springboard for more and more
attacks, (e) a thug who used chemical weapons on his own people and now is
satisfying himself with more conventional, but equally lethal, weapons … Now
tell me, boys and girls, do we have anything going on here in the US of A that
is equally compelling? One-tenth as
compelling?
I heard a newscaster ask the other day whether “America”
faces a threat from Ebola. Immediately,
I laughed. Did that newscaster have in
mind my daughter who is in South Africa now for several weeks and who has a
ticket to go to West Africa for several weeks later in the year? Perhaps the newscaster could have asked the
same question about whether “America” faces a threat from the war in Israel and
Gaza. And perhaps she has in mind my
other daughter, whose American rabbinical school expects her to spend a year in
Israel -- which in her case, begins this October. In the 21st century, do we really
still think we’re living in a time when the oceans that border our shores
operate like force fields that keep the rest of the world out and that keep us ‘umericuns
in?
Bill Clinton says that he regrets his inaction in
Rwanda, and I believe him, but it was completely predictable at that time. He is, after all, a political campaigner first
and foremost, and politicians here in America were never rewarded by taking
care of the well-being of Africans.
Gradually, though, I’m thinking that the equation will change, and maybe
not so gradually at that. I doubt I’m
alone in getting increasingly bored with partisan squabbling about microscopic
economic changes at home, when so many lives are in danger abroad. And I doubt I’m alone in realizing that
nightmarish situations abroad increasingly threaten the lives of folks at home,
not to mention those among us who spend time abroad.
I suspect that this fall, our politicians will
continue to campaign based on the “It’s the economy, stupid” theme. If it’s worked for well over two centuries,
it seems strange to change the model.
But don’t be surprised if huge swaths of voters stay away from the polls. And don’t be surprised if campaign
contributions dry up as well. People vote in mid-terms because they are
energized, and right now, the only energizing issues are foreign policy issues. “It’s the economy, stupid,” is morphing
into: “Don’t be stupid, pay attention to the world – it’s getting smaller every
day.”
No comments:
Post a Comment