One of the buzzier pieces of reporting zipping around Washington right now is Joshua Green’s cover story on Hillary Clinton in the November edition of the Atlantic magazine (link).
It features some illuminating reporting about Clinton’s ballyhooed success currying favor in the Senate (Any encounter with Sen. Byrd’s deluded, unworldly self-regard is usually good for a laugh), but Green’s overall thesis is flawed and telling about one aspect of the sickly state of political reporting.
Here’s how the story goes: Hillary was elected to the Senate six years ago. People were skeptical. But, according to Green, she’s had as much legislative success as a first-term minority senator could expect, remains the preeminent political figure for both the Democratic party and all political active women, maintains a legal resume to match anyone, is married to the man known as the Michael Jordan of politics, can and will raise more money than God, learned well from her political mistakes on Hillarycare, is self-aware and smart, but, yet, somehow, just won’t cut it as a presidential candidate.
Despite that whole laundry list, and despite the no-more-impressive resumes of most other presidential contenders (not to mention the past two presidents), Green concludes she just isn’t big enough for the job. Despite being one of the Senate’s leading critics of the Bush adminstrations war effort, despite prompting hardline foes to seek forgiveness for past grievances, despite winning over a New York electorate that was highly skeptical of the legitimacy in her initial campaign, and despite doing all this while under unmatched media scrutiny and a freshman member of the Democratic party’s most politically impotent Congressional delegation in several generations, Hillary Clinton just isn’t getting enough done for Mr. Green.
A lot of people make rational arguments against a second Clinton presidency. Some Democrats look at the polls and say Hillary can’t win. Many Republicans and independents look at Hillary’s track record and say she shouldn’t win. And most of the time they have solid reasons for taking those positions. They’re based on reason and principle. You can disagree. You can argue against them. They’re empirical.
Joshua Green eloquently lays out and reports a whole array of arguments that do not support his main thesis, yet he fails to synthesize the facts in another way. Why? He reveals himself, inadvertantly it seems, when applying his critique to Clinton’s rationalization of her vote to authorize military action against Iraq in the fall of 2002 and how she sees her position as distinct from that most unfashionable of senators, Joe Lieberman.
Green quotes Clinton in full, lauds her for her elocution and poise, admires the nuance of her peformance, and then swiftly dismisses the substance of the argument. What’s that sound like? The talent competition in a beauty contest!
We see this approach toward evaluation again during Green’s breathless recounting of how he briefly basked in the wake of Clinton’s fame. Most of the time Green seems bored with Hillary the person, hiding, as he says, “behind a screen of detail.” It is when he observes her leaping on stage with Oprah Winfrey at the International Emmys to the crowd’s roaring approval that Green seems to regard her as most worthy to lead the world’s lone superpower. He writes: “It sounds corny, but it was really exciting!”
Like a lot of people who are passionate enough about politics to dedicate their career to it, Green displays a hunger for charisma, for a sense of authenticity in America’s leader. He seems to be looking for inspiration, for a higher calling. No more compromises. The truth, at last. I’ve seen this a lot in young liberals since I’ve moved to Washington. I’ve seen it in their muted admiration for John McCain’s aura of integrity, in the persisting cult of JFK, in the rise of Barack Obama (See this recent beauty contest review from the supposed “reality-based community”). But what they’re searching for is as fleeting as the rush after a first kiss. Not only is there little reason to believe emotional attraction will inspire sound public policy, but we’ve got a century full of anecdotal evidence suggesting that it isn’t the best way to choose who runs your republic.
But if it’s all about showmanship, if Green’s way is how it’s going to go nationwide, then Hillary is in trouble. It’s clear. She doesn’t make our nipples quiver anymore. The thrill is gone and there may be nothing she can say — or broadcast a million times on television — that will win us back. Whether you’re for Hillary or against her, let’s hope we’re better than that.
