Historians Analyze Clinton

Three leading historians discussed the future of Bill Clinton's presidency last night, drawing lessons from the careers of his 20th-century predecessors.

Associate Professor of Government Mark A. Peterson opened the evening's discussion at the Institute of Politics by promising the audience of approximately 350 a "broader and wider perspective of the [recent] campaign."

"We hope to bring some historical perspective to how we ought to think about this presidential election," he said.

Peterson suggested a variety of precedents for discussion by the panelists including the generational change--"the passing of the torch"--between the Eisenhower and Kennedy presidencies.

"There's no doubt in my mind that this election does do what the 1960 election did," said Richard E. Neustadt, Dillon professor of government, emeritus.

The elections of Kennedy and Clinton, two relatively young candidates, revitalized the image of the presidency, said Neustadt. The age gaps between the two presidents and their predecessors were the largest in American history.

Both Eisenhower and Bush appeared at the end of their presidencies to be tired and "out of steam," Neustadt said. The new presidents, in contrast, excited the younger generations of the nation.

The "physical energy, voracious hunger" presented by Clinton during the campaign reminded presidential biographer Doris K. Goodwin of Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Franklin D. Roosevelt '04.

Clinton "draw[s] energy from the crowd" in much the same way as those two presidents, she said.

At the same time, he is able "to speak to different groups and make it feel like you're speaking to them," she said.

Roosevelt possessed a similar rapport with the American public, said Goodwin. His manner benefitted him politically, but also reflected a general reluctance to disappoint anyone, said Goodwin, who is currently working on a biography of the former president.

Clinton must realize that "it doesn't matter if you're loved by the majority," she said. In order to be effective, "he must act on what he truly believes in."

David McCoullough, author of the biography Truman, said it was this type of integrity that made Harry Truman a great president.

During the 1992 elections, McCoullough said he saw all three candidates attempting to draw inspiration from Truman's career.

Now that Clinton has been elected, McCoullough said, it is the model of Truman's honesty and industry that "will make the difference between a so-so presidency and one that really matters."

All three panelists agreed that in predicting the course of Clinton's presidency, historians must look at how he handled critical moments in the campaign and at his 12 years as governor of Arkansas.

"I think we should look very carefully at how our presidential aspirants have handled failure in their lives," said McCoullough. "Clinton is clearly made of tough stuff."