The predominate view I've heard and seen
consists of cries and
another two to four years of governmental deadlock, due to the
bipartisan election. Clinton certainly didn't get a whole lot done
during the first two years of his first term -- especially the
health care issue -- with a democratic legislature, but the last two
years were even more dire. Why? Americans, yearning
for change, gave the Republicans control of the House and Senate.
However, we all saw what ensued: Despite intra-party squabbles
between Newt and Dole, the government waded through the mire of two
years' political stalemate, accomplishing very little. This was
the fault of both parties; the balanced budget, after numerous of
government shutdowns, still failed to pass, despite Clinton's
adherence to the Republican demands of a budget that used their
"numbers", yet Clinton also vetoed bills that were otherwise
supported by the electorate. The give-and-take didn't work for
either the giver or the taker.
It is actions such as these that
cause a great number of Americans to be wary, fearing a repeat of the
In fact, this is what I feared
in the beginning, as well. Granted, it's the people who elect their
officials, but they're also generally hopeful that the parties will
compromise on issues to do what is best. If the last two years
are any indication, however, they are beginning to wonder if this
. . . to tell you the truth, I think so.
First, let's look at it through the lens
of history. When Presidents
are elected to two terms, this is usually an indication of long-term
support. With this comes the legacy that a two-term presidency
brings. Generally, they cast images of a nation that feels secure
enough with the current situation to hold onto it. Clinton realizes
this. Guaranteed, his name will now find its way into the history
books, long after he's spent his 8 years in office. For that to
be a good thing, he'll want to spend the next four years building
up an image of one who truly wanted to lead the United States
throughout his presidency -- and this includes getting things done.
Will this happen? I'd suspect so.
However, it's more than just a historical
anomaly. Despite all
the ideas that the hardcore right-wingers would like to propagate,
Clinton is certainly not the bleeding-heart, politically-correct,
tree-hugging, Anti-Ditto they claim he is. From the beginning of
his term, he was attacked on both sides, as Democrats and
Republicans alike questioned just where he stood. Politically,
sometimes there's nothing worse than not sticking to the
highly-partisan platforms of one's political orientation.
Clinton has some conservative ideals, but adhering to these
would be political suicide while seeking re-election. In addition,
Clinton has stated his desires to place Republicans in his cabinet.
With the term-limits in place, it's very likely that,
with a little help from the Republicans (who, after a close call
in this past election, should be wary, as well), a great deal
can -- and will -- be accomplished in this term.
In all, it all depends on who wants to get what done. Though it's all-too possible for Legis-Prez Deadlock II to occur, it's much more likely that Clinton's second term will work out much better for the American people. Between the security of his job, and the image he'll want to manifest for the future, I pretty secure in going out on this limb... and secure as a citizen of the United States.