Jump to Comments

Stephen Wayne, a Georgetown University expert on the American presidency, has written 11 books, including The Road to the White House. As part of his research on the 2008 presidential-nomination process, Wayne is conducting an evaluation of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democrat from New York. He discussed his preliminary assessment with foreign-affairs columnist John C. Bersia.

Question: What initially drew your interest to Clinton?

Stephen Wayne: When I noticed a lot of dissimilarities between her and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. She seemed hard, and he seemed soft. She was more outspoken, and he was more conciliatory. They both seemed alike in the sense that they would get upset frequently and become emotional. But you could see his emotion, whereas she would hide hers. I wondered how a marriage between people such as the two of them would hold together for a long time. I also wondered, should she become president, how she would differ from her husband. What are the kinds of situations in which her talents and attributes would excel? And what are the types of situations where her attributes and personality needs would have an adverse effect on decision-making and leadership in our society?

Q: Where did you begin?

A: I read It Takes a Village and Living History. I must admit that when I read the latter, I was deeply disappointed. The book is a matter-of-fact, non-emotional presentation, and here I was looking for insights into her psychology, that is, what makes her tick. Then I realized that the book was really just her on the surface. Hidden in those pages were some feelings that you could tease out if you knew a little bit more about her. So, I re-read the book, as well as a number of other works about her. As a result, I am beginning to develop a psychological profile of Clinton, and using that profile to denote her strengths, weaknesses and suitability for the presidency.

Q: How long have you had an interest in psychological profiles?

A: I became interested in political psychology in 1968, upon my arrival in Washington, D.C., when I began to observe former President Richard Nixon. For a smart, politically sophisticated man, he seemed to be behaving in an irrational and self-destructive manner. So, I began to start reviewing psycho-biographies and general theory in psychology to enable me to identify certain personality features that may impact on decision-making. I also came to the conclusion early on that certain people with specific kinds of psychological needs tend to run for elective office, whereas other people with different needs might become less-visible public servants or enter into the military or the private sector.

Q: What the qualities of those who tend to run for public office?

A: They are very ambitious, needful of public recognition, respect and approval. They are, on the surface, strongly inclined toward public service, but underneath have a desire to be recognized and exercise power, which sometimes compensates for feelings that they have about themselves, feelings which may convey self-doubt, a lack of confidence, inadequacies of one type or another. They rationalize what they are doing in highly acceptable public terms. I think that these are people, for the most part, who are more able than unable. They are, for the most part, more articulate than less articulate. And they have, for the most part, a certain amount of social finesse. They are good with other people and like to team up. It is natural for them. Now, that is not true of everybody. It was not, for example, the case for Nixon, nor for former Vice President Al Gore. And I do not think it is as true for Clinton as it was for her husband. The first article I ever wrote was about why people run for the presidency. I could not think of how to begin that article, so I asked my elderly grandmother, and she said, “I do not know, but I think that anybody who runs for president must be nuts.” The more I thought about that, the more I believed that she had hit on something, that presidential candidates had more of certain kinds of needs and desires than a lot of other people. That propels them into a public-centered career, where they are very visible and receive a lot of public recognition, which they need.

Q: And they really crave the experience?

A: Yes, they seem to love to run for office. This is something that I had a hard time understanding as an academic, why people would put themselves through what you must do today to be president. To be at it for two years from early morning until late at night, to ask people for money, to give the same speech over and over again, to meet lots of political types and others who are there just because they have their own ambitions, etc. I found out that many of the candidates desire all that; they get a high from it and savor the adulation. They love running for president. Social scientists have so much trouble identifying and quantifying such behavior because those desires are driven by deeper feelings and the desire to compensate for them. But if a person is visible, talks enough and behaves in a similar manner over and over again, you may be able to discern the “devil” behind the observable details. Perhaps, I figured, I could bring some attention to this desire for approval and validation. Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill used to say, “All politics is local.” The conclusion I came is that he was not wrong, but in addition, most politics is also personal.

Q: What would you say are Clinton’s strengths?

A: No. 1, she is very strong, analytical, focuses well on problems, dives right in, and is not distracted by other things (unless they are highly personal and brought out into the open). No. 2, she is highly competitive, particularly in situations involving men. She has the desire, again and again, to prove that she is the equal – if not more than the equal – of men with whom she is competing, whether in high school, in law school, as an attorney or now. No. 3, because of her marriage to Bill Clinton and his prominence, she has gained a lot of political experience, which has somewhat toned down her youthful idealism and made her more of a moderate politically. I think that, personally, she was always moderate. She was brought up in the Midwest, regularly attended the Methodist Church, and continues her religious affiliation and practices her Methodist beliefs. Religion is a comfort for her, although she does not wear it on her sleeve. Clinton is a well-grounded, very bright person who has gained much from being involved with politicians, and she can use that knowledge to achieve politically things that are difficult to accomplish in the United States. The better times are, the less power presidents have. It is very hard in our society to direct change from the position of the presidency. Presidents have to facilitate, get people to work together. I think she has the skills to do all that.

Q: And her weaknesses?

A: Well, when I say that she has the ability to get people to work together, it does not mean that she socializes easily with people, particularly men. Women are a little easier for her. Thus, she needs to push herself in many situations. For a person running for public office, she is very private. The irony of Whitewater and the Monica Lewinsky scandal is that you had a very private person whose dirty family linen was being hung in full public view.

Q: How does she accept criticism?

A: Not easily. She does not create or allow an environment in which her positions are easily challenged. She does not surround herself with people who often challenge her views. On the other hand, as president, she would surround herself with very intelligent people. I think that if they were working on a policy problem and she had not personalized it, she probably would be more accepting of other people’s views. But she has thin skin, and that is an issue. Also, since she does not interact naturally with people, there is a tendency to do more things alone than might be desirable within our political system today, to find out for herself the best solution and go for it, much in the way that President George W. Bush has exercised decisions over Iraq, which has not worked out well, as we all know.

Q: You mentioned earlier her tendency to get upset and emotional. What effect could that have?

A: Like her husband, she easily gets emotional, frustrated and angry. Like her husband, she can be difficult to deal with when her back is up in certain situations. Now, the difference between her and Bill Clinton is that he shows it, and she keeps it within. She does have a temper, though, which comes out when she is challenged, when her goals are thwarted by someone with other interests.

Q: What are some other noteworthy characteristics?

A: According to many Republicans, she is cold and calculating. Now, there is no doubt that she desires to get her way and can be manipulative although I do not see her as being so excessively. She has learned to show a different side, smiling much more and laughing occasionally – although some people say that her laugh is unpredictable and comes at inopportune times – and she seems to be, since she has been a U.S. senator, more into herself and her own career. Clinton has worked well in the Senate with both Republicans and Democrats. She has adopted more-moderate policy positions. This may be closer to the real Hillary. She has also become more realistic in terms of the kinds of changes that can be achieved in our society. So, I think that “cold and calculating” is a bad rap today. There are times when we are all that way, but I do not think that is her very nature. She is a person who is highly analytical, figures out what to do and then wants to proceed. I would hope that her experience in Washington would make her more receptive to compromises with people who see things differently or who have different aims and personal objectives.

Q: So, if she were to gain the Democratic nomination and win the election, what do you think the global reaction would be?

A: Well, for any Democrat who becomes president, the reaction will be relief that Bush is no longer president and that the policy of the United States – which many of our former friends and many of our enemies regard as imperialistic, domineering and bullying – might change. It is worth recalling that Bill Clinton was well-received around the world. We put him through a wringer on his personal behavior, but that was viewed in most of the world as irrelevant in light of his smarts, his intellect, his ability to talk, his negotiating skills, etc. I think there would be a desire to see the Clintons back in charge at the White House. There would be a lot of hope, at least initially, that U.S. policy would change, that relations would become better, and that the United States would play more of a role as a partner than as an obstinate parent who wants to get his or her way.

Q: Is that true among both men and women?

A: From the point of view of men in our society, more of them would want to see Bill Clinton back in the White House than not see him back. Women have a slightly different view and would rather not have him whispering in Hillary Clinton’s ear as she allegedly whispered in his. I do think that having her as our first woman president would show that American society has become more open, as well as less biased toward women and minorities. If we are a more-open society, we would have more appreciation for and understanding of the problems of people from different cultures, histories, languages and political experiences.

Q: And she would be open to all that?

A: I think so. After all, she has traveled around the world, spoke on women’s issues many times in Bill Clinton’s second term, and was very well-received by people in government and leaders within communities. So, she would be given a great opportunity to try to stop and respond to the anti-Americanism that has resulted during the Bush administration, particularly from the U.S. intervention in Iraq. That would be good; she would be given an opportunity to change U.S. policy and establish new, friendly relations with other countries, both friend and foe.

Q: With every president, we wonder which situations will cause the most difficulty. What might those be with Clinton?

A: The situations that would lead Clinton to get her back up, to be very suspicious of others, to reject advice because she did not respect the people who were giving it or because she was challenged – would be those where she had a personal commitment, whether on women’s rights, or policies affecting the health and education of children. To the extent that she personalized policy, she would be very difficult to deal with. I also think there would be a challenge at first in reducing the polarization between the parties, because the stereotype that some Republicans have and will try to project during the campaign will not be flattering: a tough lady who speaks her own mind, cuts corners, is highly manipulative and will impose her view on others. I do not think that is the way she is, but if enough people see it that way, there are going to be artificial barriers that will be difficult to overcome.

Q: Would she likely lead the nation into military situations?

A: I think that she would be reluctant to get into military situations involving the use of force, although she was the first person who advised Bill Clinton to pursue the bombing war in Kosovo because of the treatment by the Serbs of the ethnic Albanians. She is very sensitive to human suffering; if we did get involved in a military way, it would be to ease or prevent suffering or brutalization, rather than to extend American interests, protect our oil supply or simply show the might of the United States.

Q: In sum, what would you conclude about Clinton?

A: She is not necessarily the villain or witch that her adversaries label her, nor does she have the same attributes of her husband, nor does she walk on water (she is very human and fallible). But she is bright, qualified and, under the right circumstances, would make a pretty good president.

Readers may reach Stephen Wayne at waynes@georgetown.edu.