At this point in the process, we’ve all heard plenty of reasons detractors oppose Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, but historian Garry Wills, whom I usually find extremely persuasive, offers an argument in the NYT today that doesn’t really work for me.
As Wills sees it, if Clinton is elected, her husband is likely to “use his experience in an energetic way if he re-enters the White House as the first spouse.”
Mrs. Clinton claims that her time in that role was an active one. He can hardly be expected to show less involvement when he returns to the scene of his time in power as the resident expert. He is not the kind to be a potted plant in the White House.
Which raises an important matter. Do we really want a plural presidency?
Wills notes the basis of the historical debate among the Founding Fathers, who deliberately wanted the powers of the executive branch vested in an individual. There were some who raised fears about an excessively-powerful president, and there was talk about a “multiple-member executive,” but this was rejected — a plural president could find it easier to escape accountability.
Wills adds that Bush has loosely embraced the notion of a plural presidency, by giving Cheney “his own executive department, with its own intelligence and military operations, not open to scrutiny…. No other vice president in our history has taken on so many presidential prerogatives, with so few checks.”
That’s true, but I don’t quite see the connection between these concerns and those of Bill Clinton returning to the White House.
At this point, no one really has a sense of what BC would do during HRC’s presidency. He’s said he wouldn’t sit in on cabinet meetings, which sounds right, and said he’d “do whatever is asked” of him, which also sounds right.
The Cheney comparison doesn’t really hold up. For one thing, there’s no reason to think President Clinton (44) would give President Clinton (42) any kind of executive-branch authority whatsoever. Cheney, at least, is an elected constitutional officer. BC’s position would be largely ceremonial. If HRC were to grant BC inappropriate powers, there would be political consequences. If BC were to be involved in some kind of wrong doing, there could be legal consequences.
So, what’s the real fear here? That there could be some question of accountability? I don’t see it — the president (the current president) is always going to be responsible. If HRC is elected, the buck will stop with her. Wills describes a scenario in which a leader could hide behind a co-leader, but how would this work with the Clintons, exactly? If there’s a functioning legislative branch, there’s no reason to believe another Clinton administration would get away with anything, just because a former president is living in the White House.
Of course, some might also argue that this could be a campaign detriment — voters may be uncomfortable with this kind of arrangement. I don’t think that’s true, either. Bill Clinton’s stature may have taken a hit lately after he became a little too, shall we say, enthusiastic about his role as an attack dog, but he remains a very popular figure. The article isn’t online anymore, but the LAT recently ran an item quoting voters who seemed quite enamored with the idea of a Clinton combo in the White House.
“I like the package,” said Brad Kusel, 68, who drove 100 miles with his wife, Nancy, to hear Bill Clinton speak.
Mike Kelley, a 49-year-old farmer, said he was undecided about whom to support for president. He had attended a speech by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently and liked what he heard. But he also thought Bill Clinton’s experience would be an asset to his wife.
“It’s a plus,” he said. “Two minds are better than one. It’s like any husband and wife. You tap each other for information and help.”
I’ve seen some plausible arguments to oppose Clinton’s campaign, but this doesn’t seem like one of them.