Scott Withycombe
Assistant Perspectives Editor
At press time, pouting Senate Democrats are still holding up the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice. Rice is certainly qualified for the job and will undoubtedly be confirmed and serve the country honorably and effectively.
While we wait on the confirmation of the future secretary of state, it seems only appropriate that possible alternatives for the job deserve consideration.
It was while watching the opening ceremony of the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library that I first had the shocking idea that the former president would make an excellent secretary of state. I use the word ‘shocking’ because obviously I am no fan of liberal politics or the Clinton Administration.
However, putting that aside, there do exist a couple rational justifications for such a suggestion — primarily that Clinton would be well received abroad, and secondly, that his appointment could yield positive political benefits for Republicans. Both suggestions merit consideration.
As I sat watching the opening ceremonies, I noticed that Presidents Bush and Clinton were getting along well, talking and laughing as they walked the halls of the new building.
At this point, Rice had not yet been named to succeed Colin Powell and there was a considerable amount of speculation considering the second Bush cabinet.
In a moment of unusual excitement, I saw Clinton as an interesting and almost perfect component. It would not be, after all, the first time that a president appointed a former president to a significant post — in 1921, then-President Warren G. Harding nominated former President William H. Taft as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Since that day, there have been multiple articles commenting on the congenial relationship between Bush and Clinton and recently Bush asked Clinton to join his father in organizing the private tsunami aid effort. Clinton accepted.
While the nomination of Clinton as secretary of state is simply a hypothetical, if Bush approached him with the offer, I believe that Clinton would accept. Clinton is undeniably liberal; personally, he may be radically liberal. He did not necessarily govern from the far left, however.
Rather, Clinton was a fairly pragmatic leader. He did what was necessary, popular and, of course, in the best interest of his political legacy. He loved the power, prestige and press that came with the office of the president, and he used them to advance his career and what would become the history of his presidency.
Considering this, it is not implausible that Clinton would accept an invitation to serve on Bush’s cabinet. I would argue that Clinton would, in fact, not have any qualms about putting aside, at least publicly, any ideological differences he had with the President in order to return to the lime light. Clinton loves the camera, and the camera loves him — if the former President was offered a means to grab power and capture media attention, he would probably happily sign up.
If, for Clinton, there is the benefit of another shot at building a legacy, for Bush there is the benefit of putting a popular and nonpartisan face on the State Department.
Clinton is extraordinarily popular among Europeans and could effectively control some of the damage done in the build up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, not to mention that he could possibly work to bring more allies on board to aid reconstruction efforts.
In addition, Clinton would soften the neoconservative image of the Administration and could possibly advance Bush’s call for peace through democracy.
His previous experience with and attempts at realizing peace in the Middle East would be helpful in developing a convincing commitment to achieving a workable peace and building popular support for international and U.S. peace efforts in a region where it is lacking.
Even on policy issues, he could play a valuable role. It is often noted that Bush likes to make decisions after heated debate and honest discussion among senior staff; Clinton would add diversity to that discussion, even if he never actually radically altered the outcome.
Overall, appointing Clinton to lead the State Department would have positive benefits for the Administration in terms of public diplomacy abroad and possibly even domestic public opinion.
At a time when the country is sharply divided, placing a Democrat in the cabinet would make Bush’s commitment to heal the politic schism credible — appointing Clinton would make the commitment possible.
1-27-2005