As George W. Bush continues

his first week in the Oval Office and Bill Clinton moves into his posh

offices in Manhattan (far away from Hillary), many are wondering and posturing

on how history will view the Clinton era.

Of course, most in the media

are fixated on the degree to which his sexual shenanigans and subsequent

impeachment will overshadow his accomplishments.

And certainly his effect on

American cynicism the view that it's OK to lie, cheat and steal if necessary

for the good of the party (and one's own gratification) because "everybody's

doing it" and besides, "What about Iran/Contra?" is worth

studying and writing about.

But more important, in my opinion,

is whether and to what degree Clinton has started a trend toward governance

in the direction of becoming a true democracy?

I refer to the fact that has

become well-known, that the Clinton Administration made virtually every

decision based upon polling results. I predict that as time goes on many

will be surprised to learn just how methodically the formula was followed.

One hears constantly about

the phenomenal approval rating the president enjoyed. But it's not surprising

in light of the religious fervor with which he practiced the art of finding

out where the majority stood on every single issue and then composing

his speeches and his agenda accordingly.

But that's a good thing, right?

Doing what the people want... isn't that what America is supposed to be

all about?

If you're a regular reader,

I would hope you don't have to ask that question. But for those who aren't,

let me quickly state that this nation is not now nor has it ever been

a democracy. Pure democracy would allow the majority to plunder, rape

and pillage the minority, all the while chanting, "This is what the

people want."

Leadership, on the other hand,

is what John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson both exercised when they stood

up for civil rights, even when a majority of Americans still were not

ready to accept the concept. I didn't agree with a lot of things those

two presidents did, but on that score I must applaud them.

Search your memory banks, if

you will, and see if you can find a single instance in which Bill Clinton

took a political risk and stood against the majority and on the side of

some great (or even minor) principle.

As for accomplishments, there

were some. Bill Clinton was not the greatest foreign policy president

we've ever had, but he deserves credit for doggedly working for peace

in war-torn parts of the world.

He also worked for improvements

in social programs, using his charm and negotiating toughness to get more

money for some that deserved more money... as well as some that did not.

He improved the foreign trade

picture, fending off isolationism in partnership with those in both parties

who understand how small the world is becoming.

And he did finally sign a welfare

reform bill, after reading the polls.

Whether his success in gaining

Most Favored Nation status for China turns out to be a positive or a negative

remains to be seen. In either case, it will be part of the Clinton legacy.

Oh, yes, and there's the economy.

It has been robust the last eight years. True, the president has little

to do with that, though most of them are more than ready to take credit

for it. But at least he didn't mess it up and, regardless of whether that's

due to his own wisdom or the fact that he couldn't get his bloated budgets

through Congress, it remains a positive.

On the negative side:

The "middle class tax

cut," promised in not one but two elections, never materialized.

Clinton never even introduced it.

The military is in a shambles.

Early in his presidency, Clinton methodically downsized the military,

and then failed to budget for simple maintenance. Now, with morale flagging,

recruiting is crippled.

Yes, the youth of today simply

are interested in other things, and economic prosperity has made the recruiters'

job tougher. But potential recruits also are aware that they will have

to spend an inordinate amount of time overseas, pay and benefits are down

and the equipment they will have to use, even the ammunition, has been

neglected. That doesn't help either.

Rebuilding will have to be

done, and it will be costly. That, too, is part of the Clinton legacy,

though in the ever-shallow national media, Bush will probably get the

blame for the burden it will place on the economy.

This may shock you, but after

all of the positives and negatives are put into a pot and allowed to simmer

for a few decades, I think the overall view of the Clinton presidency

will be somewhat positive.

History, I predict, will acknowledge

that he never lived up to his promise. With his talent, he could have

achieved greatness, but his weakness and recklessness prevented that.

So it could have been much

better.

But consider this: If that

recklessness had not been paired with that charm, intellect and talent,

it also could have been much, much worse.