Clinton's Life After Death
by Ari Levy

But to be fair, those same pundits must admit something else: The Bush presidency saved the Bill Clinton legacy. Because however immoral, amoral, janus-faced and flaky Clinton at times may have been, he at least professed an understanding that is simply alien to Bush. That is, you don't help the poor by increasing the lot of the rich. Equality, as it exists in the American value system, comes from aid, innovation and outreach, not from corporate tax breaks, privatization of public services and continuous reference to the "evil-doers."

Yes, because of Bush's continuing deficiencies, Clinton's mojo is back, and on Jan. 14 it was on display in the friendly confines of New York University, at the second annual William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Foundation Forum, entitled, "Progress and Paradox: The Realities of Globalization in the Twenty-First Century." Clinton was in his element, discussing the positives and negatives of globalization and the need for the countries of the world to move from "interdependence to integration." How to continue the positives and improve the negatives was the challenge he offered to the audience and panelists, including, among others, Chilean Sen. Alejandro Foxley, former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, financier George Soros and Jorge Castañeda, who is leaving his post as Mexican foreign secretary for a professorship at NYU.

The event included three panels packed with heavy hitters and focused on the successes and failures of globalization in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, as well as how effective or ineffective the United States has been in leading the way. But let there be no doubt, while the panelists were good, this is Clinton's issue, and it was his show. He admitted early in his commentary that this isn't the "sexiest topic on the block." But perhaps that is precisely why his authority on the topic commands such respect. This isn't about politics; it's about policy. This is the guy who was too smart to be president, but too ambitious to be anything else. And in his presidential post-mortem he gets to prove just how smart he really is.

The heart-wrenching stories were still present in his keynote address. There were the Colombian children who made him a bracelet that he has worn ever since so that he is always reminded of a country where we need "to help people deal with their problems." And there was the Ghanaian woman who gave him a shirt, out of thanks for signing the African Growth and Opportunity Act that led to the opening of a shirt factory, in turn creating jobs for her and 400 other people.

But something about this Clinton is different; still slick, but not grimy. He's a man who is presumably done running for office, so he doesn't need our votes, and his wife already has them. It's a president speaking on issues that require heart, though his questionable conscience is well-documented. And perhaps most importantly it's a president who challenges his audience and the American people to think things through, not act from the gut, which is quickly becoming the norm for Bush.

What happened to Clinton's liberal agenda that all but disappeared in the late 1990s? He says the Republicans got in the way. He tried to guarantee health care for all Americans, but the Republicans didn't seemed to want it, he says. He claims he had 70 percent of Americans supporting his fight against former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) to have the United States pay UN dues, but it never became a "voting issue." Bush, the anti-environmentalist, shunned the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which Clinton endorsed. And the budget surplus, and social security — well, those have dwindled due to a failed tax plan "that did nothing to stimulate the economy" and the Republican urge to privatize. In fairness, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), was scheduled to be a panelist, but he was unable to attend due to the death of his mother. Still, this was Clinton expressing his revitalized, progressive ideas, and boasting of his foundation, which, according to its website, focuses on, among other things, the "economic empowerment of poor people" and "health security, specifically combating AIDS."

Conspicuously missing from the forum and practically absent from any current debates on globalization, though, is the voice of the left — and not just the more liberal members of the Democratic Party. Where is the real left, the critics of globalization and its intrinsic link to America's global dominance? Clinton was aware of the absence. "We haven't had anybody up here representing the people who were in the streets of Seattle or demonstrating against the other international economic meetings," he said. "But I think we shouldn't forget that they're out there." Jorge Castañeda, in his panel discussion, said to begin attacking the problems of globalization and decrease the gap between the rich and poor, we must admit that "globalization is not going to go away."

Clinton did not say if any anti-globalization types were invited to the forum, but nevertheless he, Castañeda and others have posed a question to the left: Are you going to accept the realities of the world and join the debate, or are you going to sit on the sidelines and cry about the state of the world? The inevitability of globalization is nothing new, but it is well past time for the critics to show up. Clinton appears to understand his shortcomings and surely recognizes the enemies he made amongst his former friends on the left and far left, but he more clearly recognizes and articulates the dangerous, aggressive policies of his Republican successor. Furthermore, he makes clear that one can be a critic of globalization and still help fight the spread of AIDS, support bills to clean up the environment and oppose war, though Clinton's position on the final point is not readily apparent.

But if NYU is any indication, Clinton's the good guy again. He has found redemption. And his legacy, though bruised and battered, is once again fervent. Whether or not it amounts to anything is still a big question mark, but one thing is evident: He has George W. Bush to thank for his second chance.

— Ari Levy (aridlevy@netscape.net)