[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Davos Bill is tarnishing his philanthropic brand (FINANCIAL TIMES) Davos Bill is tarnishing his philanthropic brand By John Gapper Up here in Davos, in the mountain air, the usual philanthropic suspects have gathered for the World Economic Forum. Bono, George Soros and Bill and Melinda Gates are all here. One old hand is out of town, however: Bill Clinton, the former US president and quintessential Davos man. Davos is a place ideally made for Mr Clinton in his post-presidential incarnation. He embodies the aspects of the US that are still admired by the rest of the world after nearly eight years of George W. Bush. He is eloquent, thoughtful, sensitive to inequality and suffering outside US borders and determined to do something about it. Just lately, however, Mr Clinton has been back on the campaign trail in the US in support of his wife Hillary. He has adopted tactics that, if he does not curb himself soon, may tarnish his global brand irreparably. That would be a shame, not only for him but also for the causes that he has placed his weight behind. The Bill Clinton we have come to know, as Mrs Clinton has taken the political lead as a New York senator, is an elder statesman. Having seemingly placed the anger and humiliation of the late stages of his presidency behind him, he has travelled the world trying to improve life for millions of people. The main vehicle for his outreach is the Clinton Global Initiative, which holds its annual conference in New York. There, Mr Clinton cuts a benevolent figure. Glasses perched on the end of his nose, he reads out details of each organisation that is being given the stamp of approval and calls its leaders up on stage for a certificate and often a hug. While at the CGI this year, I accompanied the leaders of Camfed, an education charity that was the focus of FT’s Christmas appeal, to have a photo taken with Mr Clinton. He was, as usual, late but all of the organisations there indulged him: they thought a moment in his presence and a photo of the occasion was worth the tedious wait. This Bill Clinton is inspiring. This one said in a speech last July: “If you think we’re hard-wired for aggression and hatred and division, all the latest brain science shows41;.41;.41;.41;we are capable of learning well into our 60s and 70s. The world doesn’t have to be the way it is. It can be otherwise if we imagine it and work for it.” But this Bill Clinton has not been seen since Barack Obama emerged as a serious threat to Mrs Clinton’s hopes of the presidency. Instead of a non-partisan philanthropist, US voters see a partisan operative getting red-faced with anger as he bitterly rails against Mr Obama for, in Mrs Clinton’s words, “raising false hopes” that the US can be otherwise. During his 1996 presidential re-election campaign, Mr Clinton said on a visit to Nevada: “I’m on the verge of finishing the last campaign I’ll ever be in unless I run for the school board one day.” Nevada should have been so lucky; he was back last week, lashing out at a reporter who asked him about legal action by Clinton supporters to block caucuses at Las Vegas casinos. That followed his nasty performance in the New Hampshire primary, where he called Mr Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war “a fairy tale”. He has become so aggressive that he and his wife, who clumsily suggested that President Lyndon Johnson deserved more credit than Martin Luther King for 1960s civil rights reforms, have alienated some black leaders. Maybe Mr Clinton is so emotionally caught up in getting his wife elected (and absolving his infidelities) that he cannot help himself. Or maybe it is a calculated political gamble in which he plays bad guy to her good woman and stirs up Latino voters to block Mr Obama’s progress. Either way, it does not reflect well on him. It may not matter if Mrs Clinton gains the Democrat nomination and becomes president. Her husband will return to the White House as the “first laddy” and his sharp-elbowed campaign will eventually be forgotten. Despite his insistence, the Clinton Foundation and Global Initiative would probably hibernate. But what if Mrs Clinton is defeated and Mr Clinton wants to resume the role of senator’s husband and global philanthropist? That, I suspect, would be hard. For the Bill Clinton on display in this year’s election is now overshadowing the Bill Clinton the non-US world knows and respects. It spells trouble not only for Mr Clinton himself but also for the causes he advocates and for others who have placed their causes under his banner. Consider whom Mr Clinton has been denigrating. Mr Obama is not Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s political guru, or another member of what Mrs Clinton once called the “vast rightwing conspiracy”. He is an African-American pioneer who is admired not only at home but also in the rest of the world for his calls to heal US divisions. Mr Obama’s campaign speeches are reminiscent of those made by Mr Clinton in his post-presidential role. Both of them have used their skills as orators to instil hope that intractable problems can be solved with united effort. By laying into Mr Obama so cynically, Mr Clinton is trashing his own reputation for idealism. From the Davos perspective, this is a more important matter than one man’s good name. US philanthropy and the commitment of billionaires such as Mr Gates and Warren Buffett to invest money and ingenuity into solving problems such as Aids and malaria in developing countries is very important. Mr Clinton ought to be doing all he can to help, as he was until politics intervened. If I were him, I would think long and hard about the risks he is taking with his no-holds-barred political attacks. If he carries on in the same vein, he may not find so many fans attending him in future. john.gapper@ft.com
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||