Blame Bill Clinton

Joe Biden's inability to moderate can't be disconnected from Bill Clinton's aptitude for it

It is the considered opinion of this writer that all political and social problems can, in one way or another, blamed on Bill Clinton. Drug wars? Yeah, he’s got a hand in that. “Big Tech” running roughshod over your inalienable right to post furry porn? Same man. The toxic masculinity that forced the MeToo movement onto the world stage? Leave it to the man who originated the “one free grope”. The sad truth of it is that, as the first truly post-Soviet president, Bill Clinton and his personality shaped almost everything about the world we’re swimming in today. Of course, not all of this was purely negative. Telecom deregulation is the reason why I’m typing these words instead of faxing them to you right now, and that’s pretty neat. But Bill Clinton’s drive for political success, and thus his personal idiosyncrasies, forged the reality we all now inhabit. Call me a prude, if you wish. But he is the ur politician of the 21st century, both literally and figuratively. Both Obama and Trump followed directly in his footsteps and drew heavily from his legacy. Dynamics on Capitol Hill - between houses, between Congress and the White House, between Congress and the public - are in essence the same as they were in 1996. Bill Clinton defined what success in D.C. looks like. He is the lodestar that, consciously or unconsciously, every other politician is following.

Well, except for Joe Biden, right?

This has become a repeating criticism for Biden as he endures his second year in office. Elected as the “moderate”, “return-to-normal” candidate, Biden has confused commentators on both the right and left by sacrificing political consensus for as “ideological” policy positions. On the surface it’s hard to deny; Biden started his term by rejecting a Republican compromise on COVID relief and is currently making headlines for rejecting Republican compromises on COVID relief. The administration declared that a messaging bill passed in 2018 was the only thing that could save the right to vote in this country, then declared that opposition to it was tantamount to enrolling in the Confederate Army. Biden refused to negotiate down to anything less than a $1.5 trillion budget, then rode that refusal all the way to the $0 budget we currently have. Clearly, this must go against everything that the legacy of Bill Clinton stands for. You’re supposed to moderate, and triangulate, and compromise your way to victory. The pundits can’t understand this. I can’t blame them, the administration’s maneuvering so far can only be described as self-harming behavior and they’ve absorbed an incredible amount of political pain. But that’s supposed to be the model, right? Why can’t he moderate?

The revocation of Title 42 authority for border enforcement agents (a provision that allowed CBP to immediately remove illegal border crossers without further processing) has crystalized into the perfect example of this. Forget the merits of the case for a moment - whether or not letting border crossers have infinite replays is a good policy - and just focus on the politics. Pretty much everyone thinks this is a bad idea. Immigration was already a key issue for 2022 voters. Republicans are salivating in anticipation of the ads they’ll run in 2024. Democrats, including (most bizarrely) New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan are jumping ship and actively campaigning against it. The conventional wisdom is that since this makes immigration “more liberal” (somehow, even though opponents never seem able to explain why), this was a sop to progressive voters who favor liberal immigration. He was trying to keep the people closest to him - activists, thought leaders, journalists - happy. And so, conventional wisdom continues, the rest of the country will be turned off by his (heavy sarcasm) “radicalism” and boot Democrats out of office. The smart move, the Clinton move, would have been to keep Title 42 in place and appear firm on immigration. By framing himself in opposition to (scare quotes again, here) “radicalism”, Clinton would have given voice to a broad middle that disagrees with the activists and wants a more “sensible” middle ground. Generate goodwill among independents and defuse Republican opposition, as Clinton did after his own midterm beating. Be a pragmatist.

To be fair, this would probably be the smart move. Biden has already proven himself (and his vice president) incapable of handling a border crisis. Like it or not, it still is quite likely that this move will increase immigration levels and make the situation harder to manage. But the claim is that Bill Clinton would have done differently in this situation. Master politician that he was, Clinton would have read the room and figured out how worried people were worried about immigration. He would have adjusted his message somehow and maybe called out some Congress or activist type for being too radical. That’s the conception of Clinton that people remember.

But they misunderstand what Clinton was really about. The trick behind Clintonism is that it’s never optimizing for the most moderate position. Clinton took pretty un-moderate views in favor of abortion, and pretty un-moderate views against gay marriage. On both those issues, he sided with relatively radical politicians outside the mainstream consensus. But avoiding radicalism isn’t the point. It never was. What Clintonism is, and what Clinton spent his years in office refining, is a politics with only one, simple maxim:

“Exercise political power, whenever and wherever you can”

That’s it. If you see a lever, pull it. If someone’s in your way, hit them with the lever. No frills, no smooth edges, no beanbag. This is the constant theme that narrates Bill Clinton’s entire career. From Arkansas onward, he was always looking for a way to do something with his office and was never very concerned about what the something was. So when he had the chance to institute universal healthcare, he made the attempt. When he was denied, he scrapped everything and began liberating the financial industry while liberating Kosovo. No matter the moment, no matter the side, he was always looking for the next way to prove that he was president, and that you weren’t. And because he was a masterful politician, it was incredibly successful. Most of his opportunities to exercise power, in the ashes of Walter Mondale’s Democratic party, were cross-ideological in nature and lead to a post-Cold War consensus that the nation was comfortable with. Add in economic growth and the explosion of the Internet, and people were just thrilled to be here. But it didn’t start because Bill Clinton wanted to take the middle road. It happened because he was willing to mow down anything in his way.

Despite what his critics think, Biden cannot be separated from that legacy. Even though Biden predates Clinton, he is fully a part of the establishment Clinton built. He comes from the same plainspoken, almost-common man mold that Clinton made famous and is infected with the same brash confidence that made Clinton infamous. From stem to stern, he’s the same politician that Clinton was. It’s in his blood.

And thus, what may appear confusing about Biden’s approach is easily explained. He wasn’t brainwashed by John Meacham into thinking he was LBJ the Second. He hasn’t been “captured” by the far left. He sees them as the best way to flex his muscles. It’s the logical conclusion to Clintonism. If the purpose of life is to exert power over others, it’s only natural that you should prefer more expansive and ambitious policies. The left is giving Biden the biggest avenue to wield authority, so he’ll side with them regardless of what he thinks about the underlying policy. But there’s a catch. Joe Biden isn’t a masterful politician. He’s a terrible, terrible politician with the executive prowess of a drunk tugboat operator. So when he tries to, say, withdraw troops from Afghanistan, he sees it as a great way to cement his legacy and lead the country. But because he’s incompetent, he bungles it and it turns into a moral catastrophe/political loser. Clinton would have tried harder to not run it into the ground, but he likely would have made the same decision.

And this brings us back around to Title 42. Biden isn’t interested in progressive immigration policy. If he was, his actions would have consistently reflected that instead of being the hodgepodge they actually are. He might have, for example, increased refugee limits to pre-Trump levels or dedicated the resources necessary to not put kids in cages. He chose not to do those things. But rescinding Title 42 authority gives him a great opportunity to go in front of the cameras and talk about the injunction against the CDC mask mandate what he’s doing for the country. It gives him the ability to declare the coronavirus emergency over and his administration a success. It’s a very, very Clintonian move. But Biden’s dogged ambition far outmatches his administrative competence. He’s simultaneously declaring that the coronavirus emergency is not over, that he actually needs billions more in funding, and no, you can’t have the binder that says what we’re spending the money on. He needs the crisis to be solved, but he’s too greedy to let go of it and lose a weapon with which to attach Republicans. And so, he fails not for his lack of Clintonian vigor, but because of it.

So what’s the alternative? On Title 42, it’s difficult to say what the best political action would be. How well one handles immigration policy is pretty directly driven by how hard the problem gets at any given time, and it’s likely that Biden’s hands are tied by a corroded and inept legal regime. But imagine an alternative, where instead of mercurial, Biden really is the ideologue that critics make him out to be. He breaks free and cuts away from the Clinton pragmatism. What happens? Well, if he actually does care about freeing up restrictions on immigration, he’d probably be more informed on the issue as a whole. He’d be more likely to send resources to enforcement agencies and make sure that the people entering this country can do so safely. He’d make sure border communities were prepared to handle the influx and make sure their needs were not being neglected in the process. And in doing so, he’d be able to handle the immigration flows that he’s being blamed for. Rescinding Title 42 wouldn’t trigger an onslaught of human misery. It would be, in fact, a pragmatic choice for an administration equipped to handle something they’re ideologically committed to.

But Biden is not ideological. He is, as we’ve seen, just a humble pragmatist. And pragmatists don’t construct ordered, rational systems for negotiating reality. They focus on the short term and ignore longstanding problems as intractable. It worked great for Clinton, who actually had the talent to back up his ego. He could survive, for a time, without ideology. It’s been a disaster for Biden. His desire to exert power, severed from ideological moorings, makes him craven and opportunistic. It exploits the worst parts of his nature and forces him into rash, poorly-executed flops that even the best media spin can’t wish away. The only way out of this trap is ideology. He needs direction and a purpose for exercising power. It doesn’t have to be radical, but even adopting the principles of the far left he’s supposedly enamored with would be better than what we’re seeing right now. It would give him a guide for actually solving problems instead of jonesing for quick hits of media attention. It might just give voters a reason to consider Democrats in future elections.