June 23, 2004

As I Walked Out on the Streets of D.C., As I Walked Out on the Streets of D.C. One Day, I Spied an Ex-President...

Lonesome Dove author Larry McMurtry reviews Clinton's My Life for the New York Times Book Review. He likes it. No sneering at it for being a "pastiche" of a life written by a guy boring enough to watch the inauguration of the President of Nigeria here. No complaints about forced marches through arid policy debates here.

McMurtry calls the book what it is: "[N]o other book tells us as vividly or fully what it is like to be president of the United States for eight years. Clinton had the good sense to couple great smarts with a solid education; he arrived in Washington in 1964 and has been the nation's - or perhaps the world's - No. 1 politics junkie ever since. And he can write - as Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson, to go no farther back, could not.

"[...]

"If Bill Clinton had been a prime minister rather than a president this book would have been in two volumes, if not three, and thus not quite such a wrestle. But if he had been a prime minister rather than a president no one would have paid him the reported $10 million for it, however well he wrote. That somehow a long, dense book by the world's premier policy wonk should be worth that much money is amusing, and brings us back to Clinton's long coyote-and-roadrunner race with the press..."

Confessions of a Policy Wonk. By LARRY McMURTRY: William Jefferson Clinton's "My Life" is, by a generous measure, the richest American presidential autobiography - no other book tells us as vividly or fully what it is like to be president of the United States for eight years. Clinton had the good sense to couple great smarts with a solid education; he arrived in Washington in 1964 and has been the nation's - or perhaps the world's - No. 1 politics junkie ever since. And he can write - as Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson, to go no farther back, could not.

In recent days the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant have been raised as a stick to beat Clinton with, and why? Snobbery is why. Some people don't want slick Bill Clinton to have written a book that might be as good as dear, dying General Grant's. In their anxiety lest this somehow happen they have not accurately considered either book.

Grant's is about being a general, in what Lincoln called a big war. Clinton's is about being a president at the end of the 20th century. Grant's is an Iliad, with the gracious Robert E. Lee as Hector and Grant himself the murderous Achilles. Clinton's is a galloping, reckless, political picaresque, a sort of pilgrim's progress, lowercase. There are plenty of stout sticks to beat Clinton with, but Grant's memoirs is not one of them.

Bill Clinton spent most of his childhood in the small town of Hope, Ark., which, culturally, is on the western edge of the South or the eastern edge of the Midwest, depending on which way one happened to be looking. His garrulity, which in the book manifests itself as too unremitting a focus on the minutiae of governance, maybe comes from the South, while his loneliness, his slight out-of-placeness, his seeming inability to get himself to really solid ground, comes from the Midwest, where he would have grown up had his father not rolled a car off the road and drowned in a drainage ditch. He died three months before Bill was born.

Some will object to any suggestion that Bill Clinton might be lonely. Look at what he's done, they might say: Rhodes scholar, Yale Law, five times governor of Arkansas, twice president of the United States, wed and kept a smart wife, sired and raised a decent daughter, gregarious, adaptable to any American occasion, from fish fry to cow-chip throw (a sport that flourishes chiefly in Nebraska). Why, he even plays the saxophone!

All true, but he's lonely, and in the quality of his loneliness lies much of his appeal. And he does have serious appeal. Nothing in this book becomes Clinton so much as his gentle, sympathetic treatment of his alcoholic, sometimes abusive stepfather, Roger Clinton, whose name he took and whom he calls Daddy:

"I was grateful to Daddy for coming to rescue me when I broke my leg. He also came home from work a time or two to try to talk Mother out of spanking me when I did something wrong. . . . I remember once he even took me on the train to St. Louis to see the Cardinals, then our nearest major-league baseball team. We stayed overnight and came home the next day. I loved it. Sadly, it was the only trip the two of us ever took together. Like the only time we ever went fishing together. The only time we ever went out into the woods to cut our own Christmas tree together. The only time our whole family took an out-of-state vacation together. There were so many things that meant a lot to me but were never to occur again."

Dreiser is the novelist who would best have known what to do with Clinton, although it was F. Scott Fitzgerald who wrote that "of all natural forces, vitality is the incommunicable one."

Clinton has the vitality, but with it the inwardly angled gaze of a man who sees too clearly the crack in reality, the difference between what is and what might be, a sense born of all those normal things - the Cardinals, fishing, the Christmas tree and the out-of-state vacation - that somehow were never to occur again.

It takes Bill Clinton only 69 pages to work through such disorder and early sorrow as he experienced and get himself to Washington and Georgetown University. In my opinion the crucial decision that ultimately got him where he is was his choice of Georgetown over the University of Arkansas. At the latter he would have been assured of booze, girls and football. At Georgetown he was reading Hegel, Kant, Joseph Schumpeter and others of that ilk; he also quickly found his way to Senator J. W. Fulbright's office, where he was put to work.

Dispatching his youth so quickly leaves very nearly 900 pages for Clinton as Political Man. Not only is politics - local, state, national, international and galactic - the heart of this book, it's also its brain, torso, liver and sweetbreads. Hillary and Chelsea visit often, but this narrative is not about family life or sex, in which area Clinton's failings are acknowledged but not extensively dwelt on. Some will want to pick and choose among the scores of mini-portraits of national and world leaders included, like Yasir Arafat and Tony Blair; and others will be equally selective about Congressional dramas and bureaucratic battles. I happen to like long, smart, dense narratives and read "My Life" straight through, happily. I may not know Bill Clinton any better than I did when I started, but I know recent history better, which surely can't hurt.

Once Clinton gets within earshot of serious politics - which occurs as soon as he goes to work for Fulbright - his narrative voice becomes more confident and the story begins to exert its pull. In his second term, particularly, international issues sometimes haunted him. The one negotiation that clearly haunts him still is his failed effort with Arafat and Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister, not long before Clinton was to leave office. Although bitterly disappointed in Arafat, Clinton makes his report - as is mostly the case - with a great deal of restraint.

When asked to review this big puffy plum cake of an autobiography, I at once agreed, expecting to have the book the next day. After all, we're an A.S.A.P., next-day America now - pretty much everything desirable in the world of goods can be had overnight. But not, as it turned out, Bill Clinton's book. He wasn't finished. He was writing it in longhand. He's still sending in pages to his publisher, I was told.

Sending in pages, in the era of e-mail? Had Clinton become our Balzac, working all night at his office up in Harlem, with haggard gofers bringing in pizza, Chinese, ribs, whatever the Midnight Scribbler wanted? Could there even be a copy boy, making his last appearance in history, waiting to rush these pages down the street to Knopf?

One of the appealing things about Bill Clinton, at least to literary types like me, is that he frequently reminds me of authors or their characters - for instance, there's Thomas Wolfe, the big ghost from the other side of the South. Bill Clinton looks homeward often, to laud his angel mother, Virginia Kelley. But why stop there? You can have Clinton as Gulliver, pricked by the Boss Lilliputian, Kenneth Starr; you can have him as Tom Jones, eternally seeking his Dad; you can have him as L'il Abner, wooing his Daisy Mae in the unlikely purlieu of Yale Law School; though to his gnatlike cloud of enemies he will always mainly be the Artful Dodger, the man they're convinced is getting away with something, even if, as is often the case, they can't figure out what.

The one literary figure Clinton does not suggest is Don Juan. From the massive evidence of this book he's still obsessed with politics, as he always has been. Undoubtedly he has occasionally made time for bedroom sports, but not much time. Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky may be three of the nicest ladies in America, but their "conquest," however we are to understand that term, does not make Clinton the world's No. 1 ladies' man, or even the No. 1 ladies' man of northwest Washington. From my observation, which has been long and searching, the people who are doing most of the messing around in our lovely capital - les hauts journalistes - are still unable to manage a mature tone when dealing with presidential sex, when there is any.

During the frolicky terms of those serial adulterers J.F.K. and L.B.J., these journalists' lips and eyelids might as well have been sewn shut; by the time their stitches dissolved it was the late 1970's, perhaps not the steamiest time for presidential sex. Jimmy Carter confessed to lust in his heart, which is not where the lustful usually locate it. His wife, Rosalynn Carter, supposedly once told a reporter that if she had had an affair she certainly wouldn't tell him. Clinton quotes the line, in a wistful, wish-I'd-thought-of-that way. The Reagans - well, let's skip the Reagans. G. H. W. Bush, had he so chosen, could have stepped out without giving a thought to the press, because the press was scared of his wife. Hadn't Richard Nixon paid Barbara Bush a dark Nixonian compliment? Hadn't he said that she really knew how to hate? Certain not-so-subtle sartorial signals at the recent seemingly endless Reagan obsequies - was that a silver jacket she had on? - suggest that she still does.

The reason all the above seems relevant is that the press's much extended pursuit of Clinton - or both the Clintons - is half the story. Perhaps the fact that the press caught Gary Hart with Donna Rice on his lap and immediately chased him back to Colorado emboldened a few reporters - but was that really much of a triumph? Wilbur Mills, the once-powerful congressman from Arkansas, floundered off into the Tidal Basin with a stripper, but that story didn't really have legs. It was Bill Clinton who had legs - still does - and it's no wonder the press fell upon him with glad cries, which soon turned into yelps of outrage. A yelp or two could be heard just recently, when a select few finally got a look at his book.

If Bill Clinton had been a prime minister rather than a president this book would have been in two volumes, if not three, and thus not quite such a wrestle. But if he had been a prime minister rather than a president no one would have paid him the reported $10 million for it, however well he wrote.

That somehow a long, dense book by the world's premier policy wonk should be worth that much money is amusing, and brings us back to Clinton's long coyote-and-roadrunner race with the press. The very press that wanted to discredit him and perhaps even run him out of town instead made him a celebrity, a far more expensive thing than a mere president. Clinton's now up there with Madonna, in the highlands that are even above talent. In fact, he and Madonna may, just at the moment, be the only ones way up there, problems having arisen with so many lesser reputations.

And somehow, vaguely, it all has to do with sex - not necessarily sex performed, just sex in the world's head. I doubt myself that Bill Clinton's sex life has been all that different from anybody else's: pastures of plenty, pastures of less than plenty, pastures he should get out of immediately, and not a few acres of scorched earth.

During the silly time when Clinton was pilloried for wanting to debate the meaning of "is," I often wondered why no one pointed out that he was educated by Jesuits, for whom the meaning of "is" is a matter not lightly resolved.

"My Life" stops but doesn't end. How could it? The Clintons plan to be around for another two or three decades, at least.

Before leaving them I might just offer a bit of context. To judge from this book, Clinton has never been able to understand why Kenneth Starr, the special counsel appointed to investigate Whitewater, pursued him so ferociously. The answer is to be found in the soil Kenneth Starr sprang from. His hometown, Thalia, Tex., lies along what local wits sometimes refer to as the "Floydada Corridor," a bleak stretch of road between Wichita Falls and Lubbock that happens to run through the tiny town of Floydada, Tex. It's a merciless land, mostly, with inhabitants to match. Towns like Crowell, Paducah and Matador lie on this road, and nothing lighter than an elephant gun is likely to have much effect on the residents. Proust readers and fornicating presidents will find no welcome there.

Bill Clinton should check it out. If he makes it to Floydada his understanding of Judge Starr (as he's sometimes called in Texas) will have been substantially increased.

Larry McMurtry is the author of 24 novels, including "Lonesome Dove," winner of the 1986 Pulitzer Prize for fiction. His forthcoming novel is "Loop Groups."

Posted by DeLong at June 23, 2004 05:56 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post
Comments

A great review. He captured a part of Clinton (whom I identified with) that I didn't see. I was going to wait until the book came out in paperback; I think I'll buy the hardcover. I do a lot of book reviewing. This is a masterpiece.

Posted by: Knut Wicksell on June 23, 2004 06:38 PM

____

"I often wondered why no one pointed out that he was educated by Jesuits, for whom the meaning of "is" is a matter not lightly resolved".- Funny thing, so was Heidegger.

Posted by: john c. halasz on June 23, 2004 06:56 PM

____

"I spied an ex-president..."

Hopefully not "wrapped up in white linen and as cold as the clay."

Posted by: Rex Momus on June 23, 2004 07:24 PM

____

The Greatest Generation was a progressive generation.

Posted by: NeoDude on June 23, 2004 08:42 PM

____

The Greatest Generation was a progressive generation.

Posted by: NeoDude on June 23, 2004 08:43 PM

____

The other thing that McMurtry points out (that bothers the heck out of me) is that the Grant Memoirs have nothing to do with the Presidency. Can you imagine if they were published today..what boneheads would be saying about it...Grant shows no remorse for his scandals. Isikoff/Kakutani would be despondent over the repetition of moving troops up and down the Mississippi and other mind-numbing military logistics...

Hurrah!

Posted by: Mr. Vibe on June 23, 2004 08:49 PM

____

Didn't Grant not write Grant's autobiography? But rather Mark Twain, perhaps America's best writer ever? Or at least, Twain edited much of it? Caleb Carr in the Modern Library edition says Grant's Personal Memoirs "owe more than a little to the editorial efforts of one of Grant's champions, Mark Twain."

At 900+ pages, I suppose Clinton had no editor at all, although we may discover later whether any ghost helped him write.

Posted by: tjallen on June 23, 2004 08:49 PM

____

A poetic review

Posted by: bakho on June 23, 2004 09:07 PM

____

In what sense is this fair use? Do you give out the "readers" for your classes for free too?

Jebus DeLong, you'd be quite a bright spot on the net if you could only learn to respect copyright.

Posted by: haasalum on June 23, 2004 09:43 PM

____

It isn't fair use and he's egregious about this. It's a mystery to me. A subtextual statement about IP? Brad, how do you feel about your works being republished in their entirety elsewhere, without your permission?

Posted by: Keith M Ellis on June 24, 2004 04:33 AM

____

"Can you imagine if they were published today..what boneheads would be saying about it...Grant shows no remorse for his scandals."

"Didn't Grant not write Grant's autobiography? But rather Mark Twain, perhaps America's best writer ever? Or at least, Twain edited much of it?"

Grant died within a few days of completing his book, so even today, public criticism would have been restrained. It is curious that Grant doesn't discuss his presidency in the book, but the story of how he held off death to complete the book is well known (his family needed the money). That may explain why he never got around to writing about his presidency, and instead concentrated on the war stuff, which was what the public was most interested in.

Having Twain as an editor had to help, but Grant's Civil War dispatches show he was a capable writer and a memorable phrase-maker on his own ("unconditional surrender," "I shall fight it out on this line if it takes all summer,""put yourself south of the enemy and follow him to death")--Peggy Noonan would be envious.

Posted by: rea on June 24, 2004 05:45 AM

____

Cool!

Posted by: SW on June 24, 2004 05:55 AM

____

This excellent review of course stands in stark contrast to the general tut-tutting echoing around the beltway. The DC press corps simply will not pass up an opportunity to misunderstand Bill Clinton and utterly ignore his appeal.

The past few weeks have offered an instructive lesson in the general press view -- 10,000 people lining up to see Reagan's coffin = a deep and abiding love for him (and by extension all Republican presidents) from the entire country; a similar or greater number lining up to have Clinton's book signed (or, this weekend, to see Fahrenheit 9/11) = a collection of tired old lefties who can't get over Election 2000.

Posted by: demtom on June 24, 2004 07:28 AM

____

"It isn't fair use and he's egregious about this. It's a mystery to me. A subtextual statement about IP? Brad, how do you feel about your works being republished in their entirety elsewhere, without your permission?

Dont worry about fair use, The Wall Street Journal enforces it quite effectively. I am glad to see you sticking up for the New York TImes. I bet you do that all the time. By the way, Keith M Ellis, what did you think of the review? Quite a bit different from the Times first review of "My Life" isnt it? Do you think it is because this reviewer maybe actually read all 900 plus pages?

Posted by: David M Ellis on June 24, 2004 09:57 AM

____

Since the NY Times does not charge for access to its online edition the "fair use" whineage by the wingers is just hot air and yet another ad hominum attack. The article itself is a welcome antidote to the sterile and self-interested trashing by the Heathers in the media who fanned the Clinton scandal flames, and I actually *learned* things from the review that give me a better feel for what I'd get if I bought it.

Marc

Posted by: Marc on June 24, 2004 10:12 AM

____

Are you people on drugs? Just because I'm critical of Brad's flauting of copyright law doesn't mean that I'm some conservative nut. I like the review, I agree with McMurtry, and I love Bill Clinton. Does this make your head explode or something? Sheesh.

Posted by: Keith M Ellis on June 24, 2004 10:43 AM

____

A small tribute to Clinton sleeping on the couch

Posted by: justin @ RSR on June 24, 2004 11:35 AM

____

Liked the review myself but getting back to this copyright thing... I've read others objecting to this on Brad's blog and I just assumed he had a stock response or it got resolved or whatever... and then I realized I didn't know what Brad's response to this was. I mean, is this stuff public domain for cut and paste after it gets on the web? Are excerpts on blogs okay? Heck if I know but if this is *not* kosher of Brad to do, he has some 'splainin to do...

Posted by: cc on June 24, 2004 12:05 PM

____

I have never much cared for McMurtry's novels, but this is a thoughtful and intelligent review. Bravo.

Posted by: Douglas on June 24, 2004 12:11 PM

____

Sorry Keith. Lefty sites have an ongoing problem with ad hominum attacks on bloggers and their cites, and it certainly looked par for the course. That is obviously not your intent, and I shouldn't have ascribed it to you.

Since I can get the NY Times content for free by calling myself "Lucky Dog", a 98 year old Armenian with a throwaway hotmail address, I doubt that there are real copyright issues. There are *comprehension* issues related to excessively long quotes, and I'd prefer that Brad not do that, but to call it a copyright issue is a bit silly.

cheers,

Marc

Posted by: Marc on June 24, 2004 12:20 PM

____

This great policy wonk thinks that Scalia was Bork's replacement on the Supreme Court, fellas.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 24, 2004 12:57 PM

____

The fascinating thing to me about the beltway response to clinton's book is the total willingness of people to discuss the book without reading it. There really is no shame....

Patrick, what in the world are you talking about?

Posted by: howard on June 24, 2004 01:38 PM

____

marc et al.,

Whether you can get the content free on the NY Times site has no bearing on the copyright issue, just to set the record straight. In fact, the NY Times site is a commercial venture (they charge for advertising which supports your free use) and any unauthorized violation of their content falls under copyright. Any original content produced by an indiviidual or corporation, no matter how it is used by its owner, is protected by US copyright laws as soon as it is created.

Posted by: pblsh on June 24, 2004 01:48 PM

____

howard, page 332:

"President Reagan then nominated Judge Antonin Scalia, who was as conservative as Bork, but hadn't said and written as much to prove it."

Btw, does it strike anyone as odd that in the lengthy review by McMurtry in which he several times refers to Clinton's "wonk[ery]", that he can't give any actual references to policy in the book (except for a brief reference to his failed Middle East initiative)?

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 24, 2004 01:50 PM

____

Patrick, that quote, by itself, proves nothing. Robert Bork was a well-known benchmark for legal conservatism. Give us the context that shows that Clinton thought that Scalia was Reagan's choice in lieu of the rejected Bork and i'll agree that he made a mistake, but your quote doesn't do it.

And no, it doesn't strike me as odd at all: McMurtry responded to the book as a reader and a writer. He didn't choose in his review to detail the policy matters and hash them out. Why should that strike us as odd?

Posted by: howard on June 24, 2004 01:59 PM

____

Patrick:

Nope. You, on the other hand, do strike me as odd.

Very odd.

Posted by: Wonker on June 24, 2004 02:02 PM

____

I am odd, very odd, by the standards of SDJ. I control my emotions. I look at the facts. I apply the rules of logic.

I'm a veritable SDJ Horror Show.

Btw, it's page 337, I now see, where Clinton talks about his Senate testimony against Bork's nomination in 1987. He then makes the comment about Scalia I cited above.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 24, 2004 03:26 PM

____

Patrick, i can't tell if you're admitting error (if so, kudos), or if clinton made the error you note - can you please just go ahead and post the whole thing? At this stage, from what you've said, it's possible that Clinton made an error (the "then" being the giveaway), and it's possible that Clinton didn't make an error (if he correctly knew that Bork was '87)....

Posted by: howard on June 24, 2004 03:58 PM

____

Can someone explain to me the part about

"Hadn't Richard Nixon paid Barbara Bush a dark Nixonian compliment? Hadn't he said that she really knew how to hate? Certain not-so-subtle sartorial signals at the recent seemingly endless Reagan obsequies - was that a silver jacket she had on? - suggest that she still does."

What does the silver jacket signify? Is it just hecause it isn't black or what?

Yours WDK - WKiernan@ij.net

Posted by: W. Kiernan on June 26, 2004 04:03 PM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil uk on July 6, 2004 02:40 PM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil uk on July 6, 2004 11:03 PM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil on July 8, 2004 03:25 PM

____

Get it up mate, it's fun!

Posted by: Viagra on July 8, 2004 09:43 PM

____

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

Posted by: cialis on July 13, 2004 02:36 PM

____

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

Posted by: cialis on July 13, 2004 07:29 PM

____

I don't really think your thoughts are right. Maybe you need a loan?

Posted by: payday loans on July 15, 2004 01:03 PM

____

If you're looking for Kontaktanzeigen online, check the blog!

Posted by: Kontaktanzeigen mit Bild on July 16, 2004 06:32 AM

____

Post a comment
















__