AND ANOTHER THING
Lady Macbeth rushes in where Calpurnia fears to tread
PAUL JOHNSON
It was Hillary who put a blight over the first days of the presidency by insisting Clinton raise the issue of homosexuals in the armed forces immediately. That not only upset the Senate but, perhaps more important, it turned the chiefs of staff against their commander-in-chief — an antagonism which had further direct conse- quences when they vetoed his intervention Plans in Bosnia last month, and so forced the President into a humiliating public sur- render on a prime issue of foreign policy. Hillary has also been heavily involved in all Clinton's most injudicious appointments. She insisted on a liberal woman as attor- ney-general, and so stuck her husband with Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, both of whom turned out to have a history of law-break- ing — of a peculiarly objectionable upper- middle-class, trendy-Left kind, what's more and so had to withdraw. Nonetheless, Hillary nagged at him to persist in getting a Woman (Infirm of purpose!') and so land- ed him with Janet Reno, the aggressive giantess who brought about the tragedy of Waco, the first mess of the presidency. We can be sure, too, that it was Hillary's influence which was behind Clinton's attempt to appoint Lani Guinier boss of the Justice Department's division of civil rights. Both the Clintons say they have known Guinier a long time. However, the Presi- dent was obliged to admit he had not read the lady's writings, which advocate the extension of the quota system, and other reverse-discrimination devices, in favour of blacks. This is a damaging admission and indicates Clinton was merely acting on mat- rimonial orders. A growing number of blacks, and especially black women, are now getting senior appointments solely because of the colour of their skin, and white worms are beginning to turn. What particularly angers white academics, for instance, is when they discover that an over-promoted black woman is actually being paid more, in addition, for doing exactly the same job as they are. This is a hot issue, and it is not at all surprising that overwhelmingly hostile comment forced Clinton to withdraw Guinier's nomination, much to the unconcealed fury of the nomi- nee and the black lobby. So the President is under fire from all sides as a result of doing his wife's bidding.
How long will it last? Clinton, it seems to me, is essentially an ambitious politician, of few or no convictions, married to an ideo- logue. Without Hillary, he would have been gradually pushed by events into a posture of empirical conservatism, as has happened so many times before to nominal radicals faced by the realities of office. There are signs that this is happening already, at any rate on some economic issues. But Hillary remains a major obstacle to Clinton's inex- orable drift to the Right, and sooner or later there will be a showdown. The likeli- hood of blood on the White House walls is increased by the fact that Hillary, as well as her husband, has her own personal staff, and wars between courtiers always enven- om disputes between a king and queen. My prediction, therefore, is that the Clinton presidency is likely to divide into two peri- ods: the phase of joint sovereignty, rather like the reign of William and Mary, and the subsequent period of sole rule, when Clin- ton, after a fierce struggle, throws off Hillary's tutelage and does things his way. Clinton is already discovering that sacking an aide or two is not enough to turn his presidency round and that a more funda- mental U-turn is required. That can only
mean the public humiliation of Hillary and I don't think she will go quietly. Do we face, then, the prospect of the first White House divorce?
With John Major the problem is quite the reverse. He is in at least as much poli- cies-and-appointments trouble as Clinton, with the additional handicap that he has no contract of service and can be sacked overnight if sufficient Tory MPs decide he must go. He is a weak man, whose weak- ness is not helped by a streak of obstinacy which leads him to cling to lost causes like David Mellor and Norman Lamont long after they are past saving. I suspect the obstinacy springs from vanity, which explains why he so resents press criticism. To make matters worse, Major has no strong political, let alone philosophical or religious convictions, which can sometimes be a substitute for strength of will. I can think of no recent leader more in need of a firm-minded and energetically protective wife, able and willing to fight battles on his behalf, both inside and outside No. 10. Such wives are a recurrent feature of British politics. Thus Lady Campbell-Ban- nerman broke up the infamous `Relugas Compact' designed by Asquith, Grey and Haldane to emasculate her husband's pre- miership right from the start, and both Mrs Baldwin and Lady Douglas-Home were instrumental in stiffening the resolve of their spouses.
Alas, Norma Major is a retiring lady, even less inclined than Calpurnia to press her point. She does not seem to like being in No. 10 at all and is quite incapable of doing what she ought to do: take her broom and sweep off the premises all the opinionated, second-rate people who have been giving Major such bad advice over the last year. I would like to see her do a little dagger-wielding, rather as the fierce Nancy Reagan dispatched her husband's failed staff-chief, Donald Regan. But it would be cruel to ask Mrs Major to do such a thing; she would far rather creep into the country and brood in melancholy silence. As John Major is inclined to despondency himself, the case is hopeless. I'm not suggesting that the President and the Prime Minister should swap wives or even revive those old wartime lease-lend arrangements. It's just one of those unnerving providential jokes, to land us with too much wife-power on one side of the Atlantic and not enough on the other.
Previous page
