bill clinton and chris wallace and interview

The third impression I received as I thought through the Wallace-Clinton interview of last Sunday was that Bill Clinton is pursuing a life that will, when combined with his wife's ambition and ability, most likely land her in the White House in 2008. The fact that even liberal Democrats that I know are cringing at the mention of a "Hillary" candidacy at this point means that I am aware of the limb I have just climbed out on. But I say this because the persona that Bill Clinton is establishing is one that cuts through ideology and lands right where the American people are wanting someone to land now: on the global plight of humans. It is Clinton's humanity and his desire to use his influence to help a struggling humanity, that will, more than anything, re-endear him to large swatches of the American electorate and, thruogh him, bring Hillary with him. Let me describe what I mean.

Americans and Ideology

Though Americans readily believe in certain bedrock values, such as the importance of personal freedom, of justice for all, of opportunity for all who expend effort to improve themselves, Americans are not, by and large, ideologues. An ideologue, in my estimation, is a person who focuses on one or two bedrock political or religious issues, holds onto them with perfervid intensity, and vilifies anybody who disagrees with him/her on these one or two issues. Of course there are people who do this. No question. But the majority of Americans are people of surprisingly large decency who understand that moral ambiguity, rather than blazing moral clarity, inheres in many issues in our common lives. I say "surprisingly" large decency because if someone were to drop into America from outer space these days and only watch the TV talk shows, such a person might get the impression that all Americans are strident, intolerant, interrupt each other all the time, always are in the attack mode, and generally do not and cannot listen to other points of view.

I have discovered anew, however, that the general tenor of America is simply not ideological. I have learned this through gradual engagement more and more with the autism community. These are two kinds of folks: (1) those who suffer from an autistic spectrum disorder; or (2) those who are parents, loved ones, caregivers, social workers, counselors, law enforcement professionals and others whose daily lives are affected by persons on the autism spectrum. As I have gone to conferences, have talked with people, have learned their stories as it relates to struggles they are having as well as little victories they achieve, I am overwhelmed by the courage, the heart, the perseverance, the desire to learn and help, the spirit of comraderie, and the love that pervades so many lives that have been so thoroughly exhausted by the realities of autistic spectrum disorders. Certainly there are ideologues in this community, too, but the vast majority of people I have met are those whose hearts are open to learn, to celebrate, to sympathize with each other, to extend understanding and open arms, to strive to incorporate the latest scientific findings into their lives.

Back to Bill Clinton

What does this have to do with Bill Clinton? Well, everything, because it confirms for me that Americans are looking for what I call "people of the heart," who really are dedicating their lives to helping others. Americans want to admire not simply one who can appear strong through control of the organs of government but whose strength comes from the very vulnerability of opening one's heart to those in much less fortunate circumstances than many of us. Americans want someone to go to and to give of self to the underdogs in our world. And, that is precisely what Bill Clinton is doing. He not only is engaging in a global AIDS intiative, not only exploring issues relating to Global Warning, but is doing so by linking his hands with those with the most resources in the world who also want to leave the world a better place than when they entered it.

How great a contrast there is now between the current Chief Executive and the immediate Past Chief Executive. The one is increasingly bogged down in an international scenario of his own making, and he tries to justify doing more in the war on terror by frightening (or attempting to frighten) the American people. The other sees the possibilties in life not in abstract concepts (i.e., "Democracy" in Islamic regimes) but in real-life initiatives to prolong people's lives who have been devastated by HIV. Let me be quick to add, that I don't disagree that Democracy is a good thing, and that in general most societies would be better served by more of it. But the word "Democracy" is used by the current Administration more as a rallying cry to try to support a failing agenda than a reality that he is moving toward on the ground. Some encouraging signs regarding the formation of a "Democratic" Iraqi government have, in my mind, been completely muffled by the stark reality of religious/sectarian animosity, which is only being restrained by our 130,000 or so troops in that troubled land.

Conclusion

I think the New Yorker story and the Fox News interview were rites of passage for Bill Clinton in the last week or so. He is now back in the public eye (for some reason the publication of his book in 2004 didn't catapult him back into our consciousness for long), and he will stay there, I believe. The Republicans have the organs of government and the media outlets on their side at this point. But never underestimate the power of a person's humanity to rivet the hearts of the American people. Republicans are, and ought to be, scared at this point. Bill Clinton is back--and the politics of 2008 look much more upbeat for the Democrats.

2109