Orthodox History And The Clinton Wars

Robert Dallek, biographer of LBJ and, just now, of JFK, is a fine historian, and his review in Sunday’s New York Times Book Review of Sidney Blumenthal’s memoir of his controversial service in the Clinton White House reveals many of his skills.

For example, Dallek observes (correctly, in my opinion) that “history is an argument without end,” but then he marches headlong into the trap that ensnares so many at the top of the history profession today of assuming that he and his ideological peers actually speak for History rather than for one side of a continuing argument. In short, he is guilty of either ignoring his own sound observation or, more likely, of assuming that the other side of the contemporary cultural and ideological divide is populated only by moralistic right-wing imbeciles.

Thus, sounding more like the authoritative Voice of History than what he is, which is an advocate of one side in an ongoing argument, Dallek pronounces judgment from on high that

participants in the Clinton wars would do well to understand that re-fighting 90’s battles will be of less benefit to the country than detached analysis explaining how we can avoid future unproductive quarrels over the personal weaknesses of our presidents.

My intent here is not reopen debate on the propriety of Clinton’s impeachment (although believe me, I am perfectly happy to do so) but to point out the chasm between Dallek’s call for “detached analysis” and what he writes in this review calling for it.

Is the following statement “detached analysis” or simply another example of the “unproductive quarrels” Dallek calls on us to abandon?

Clinton’s egregious act of self-indulgence was outdone by an impeachment based not on constitutionally required high crimes and misdemeanors but on a vindictive determination to bring down a president who had offended self-righteous moralists eager to put a different political agenda in place.

Again, my point here is not to argue that Clinton’s critics were correct (though I believe they were) but rather to observe that Dallek seems incapable of comprehending that many — arguably, most — of Clinton’s critics were not “self-righteous moralists.”

Dallek is certainly free to believe that perjury and subornation of perjury are not high crimes and misdemeanors if they are committed to cover up “private actions.” Many other leading historians also believe that. But other non-wacko historians disagree, proving Dallek’s point — which he ignores here — about history as argument. Dallek’s position seems to be that history is an argument only so long as those on the other side from his own don’t engage in “unproductive quarrels,” which of course just happens to be what “self-righteous moralists” do.

I myself always believed that the claim that Clinton’s behavior was unimpeachable because it was “private” and “personal” bordered on the bizarre. What if, instead of committing and suborning perjury, he had arranged for the murder of a witness or two? True, perjury and using the presidential office to suborn it are not murder, but then they’re not potted plants, either.

But maybe this is just the predictable rant of another self-righteous moralist.

Say What?