The Parallel Lives of Bill Clinton

Abstract

Reflecting on the legacy of former President Bill Clinton in December 2000, Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff and budget director from 1994 to 1997, noted: “In many ways, this is a tale of two presidencies. One, obviously brilliant and extremely capable, with the ability to help produce the greatest economy in the history of this country and to focus on major domestic priorities and, in effect, protect peace in the world. And the other is the darker side, the one that made a terrible human mistake that will forever shadow that other presidency” (qtd. in Purdum par. 22). Many critics have shared Panetta’s assessment that Clinton’s presidency, and even his very identity, is marked by a fundamental duality. A Rhodes scholar with a dazzling intellect made mistakes that can only be called stupid. Clinton’s longtime adviser and strategist, Dick Morris, speaks of “Saturday-night Bill” and “Sunday-morning President Clinton” (83). Our former president has been described as a man so profoundly at odds with himself, the polarities of his character so divergent, as to be nearly irreconcilable. This striking contrast has led commentators to invoke repeatedly some fundamental dichotomy in Clinton, some irresolvable schism that we recognize but cannot quite comprehend. Bruce Miroff identifies Clinton as a “postmodern character,” “a political actor who lacks a stable identity” (106). Clinton’s continual reinventions, Miroff argues, point to a disturbing absence of self that thrives on performance rather than on substance. Others, like Matt Bai, conceive of Clinton as a composite of opposites, not an empty vessel to be filled with the latest results of polling data. Bai observes, “Two sides of Clinton’s persona have long warred with