Dead Center: Clinton-Gore Leadership and the Perils of Moderation

This provocative yet thorough analysis of Bill Clinton's tenure in office provides an almost convincing argument against Centrism and its implementor. As a Bill Clinton fan, I must say that the author's arguments nearly swayed me to believe that Bill Clinton may have failed in what they called "transformational" and "principled" leadership of the country. They trace the beginnings of Clinton's presidency, from his inauguration speech of change and renewal, his failure of health care reform, his foreign policies to the Gingrich revolution and finally to impeachment. Within each, the authors argue that Clinton failed to bring any sweeping reform or decisive leadership but instead brought tactical politiking, dealing and governing from the vital Centre. The reader is left wondering whether Centrism is good at all. In fact, one gets the impression that Clinton's legacy lies in a tangled web of disjointed policies and no over-arching vision.However, I think the authors miss the point that whilst Clinton did promise change and succeeded in some ( balancing the budget, welfare reform, NAFTA) and failed in others (health care reform,arguably race, campaign finance), the political environment he was in and also the post cold-war era constrained such sweeping changes. The Gingrich revolution forced Clinton to think more pragmatically and more tactically as re-election loomed. Impeachment (his own doing) poisoned Congress to a standstill in enacting any later reforms. In fact, whilst I agree that Clinton failed to deliver the high hopes he had promised from the start of his presidency, the situation changed to such a degree, that to survive politically, he had to govern from the centre ( see his triangulation). To a small degree, Clinton's presidency was a product of its times; there was no Cold War or major crisis to display "principled" leadership as with Reagan.Not everthing is bad news of course. They outline Clinton's foreign policy successes in Ireland and the Middle East but also his hesitant meandering in Haiti and Bosnia. The overall picture is one of a work in progress - a President learning on the job, trying to enact "bold change", later displaying tactical and political skill and subtly reforming the people's view of government. At the very least, this book strongly initiates the debate on the Clinton legacy and his leadership. It is by no means the end.

Historian James MacGregor Burns and Georgia Sorenson have written an interesting book about Bill Clinton's failed effort to be a success by becoming a "centerist" U.S. President. Their excellent book, title DEAD CENTER: CLIINTON-GORE LEADERSHIP AND THE PERILS OF MODERATION(1999), is worth reading.The authors contend, rightfully, I think, that Bill Clinton tried to please everybody, and ended up pleasing no-one (well, almost no-one). Pulitzer prize winning historian James MacGregor Burns and his co-author Georgia Sorenson argue that the price of centrism is high. They state that in choosing a centrist strategy, Bill Clinton rejected the kind of leadership that might have placed hiim among the historic "greats."They review Clinton's presidency (which they imply was a failed presidency), and state that Clinton lacked creativity in fashioning new policies, the courage to press for reforms and other changes despite popular apathy and opposition, the conviction to stick to grand principles no matter how long their realization might take (they imply Clinton was a notably mediocre President, and that he must really be grouped in the unprestigious ranks of Presidents who were fence sitters).Most interestingly, Burns and Sorenson contend that Clinton (and by association, Albert Gore) was notable for his lack of commitment to the people to fight for their welfare at any personal cost. This is quite a charge considering that the main Gore Presidential candidacy battle cry was "I will fight for you!"Burns/Sorenson review the disasterous faillure of Clinton's 1993-94 health bill and ascribe the failure of it to Clinton's centrism. They remind readers that Clinton rejected the highly intelligent Canadian health plan model, which has been successful for decades in attaining a liberal good, universal health care. Clinton tried to avoid alienating highly paid doctors and insurance companies. The result was that his health plan had no particular idology, pleased nobody, really, and failed miserably. The ironic thing was that Clinton's health bill was the most noble effort he made in his Presidency, which went downhill from that point.Buy and read this excellent book. It's a good read, and great discussion of how not to be a U.S. President.

This is an excellent history book... refreshing to read about the presidents and problems before the Clinton/Gore administration... Either I have forgotten, never read, or ignored history of what it takes to be the head of a country.... It is very readible... a non-fiction book of interesting facts. I can't put it down.

This is a wonderful book which makes sense to those of us who see Clinton as a gifted politician and wonder what went wrong. The failure of his ideology -- centrism -- is at stake here and the authors' offer a really new look at its dark side. Obbviously has implications for Hillary, Al and George W., too. If you think centrism is boring, this will change your mind! Wow!

Thanks to James MacGregor Burns, one of the truly great presidential historians, we finally have a book that takes a serious look at how Clinton rates as a President. This book also does a fascinating job of letting you look at the roles of Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, which is especially helpful now that they are both candidates. As with Burns' other books, this one reads beautifully, but still manages to make you think about what it takes to be president, and the costs and benefits of Clinton's centrism.