All of the telecasts of yesterday's Inauguration lauded the peaceful, and even positive, transfer of power that we take for granted in America. Indeed, it is something to be applauded. The pictures of the Obamas and Bidens seeing the Bushes off in their helicopter, even sharing a joke on the stairs, were a moving testament to the grand idea behind America that extends legitimacy to each executive during each hand-off, no matter how dicey.
Many commentators noted that the 2001 transition from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush wasn't similarly friendly or celebratory in tone. Because of the controversy over the election's outcome, the incoming Bush team and the outgoing Clinton team were engaged in a P.R. war in the press over transition funds and transition headquarters until late November. Bill Clinton himself was offering helpful soundbites about Gore's fight for "every single vote" to count while Andy Card (incoming COS) and John Podesta (outgoing COS) were publicly arguing about whether Podesta was returning Card's calls.
It was only in mid-December when Al Gore finally conceded the election, that the Bush team officially got to take the reins, pulling off what historians have deemed an impressively smooth transition considering they had about half the time other administrations have had.
Beyond the contentious election, which iced already chilly Clinton/Bush White House relations, there was the well-known damage done to the White House and other offices by Clinton staff, inflicting the final indignity of the Mark Rich era of Clinton's presidency. Apparently determined to leave the office of the presidency like disreputable double-wide renters, Clinton staff removed "W" keys from White House keyboards and left obscene voice mails, notes, and trash behind, to the tune of at least several thousand dollars worth of damage, according to a GAO report. Democrats predictably decried the GAO report as a witch-hunt. Although there's some dispute over how widespread the damage was, there were pranks pulled and some damage done.
Clinton staffers dismissed any accusations that they were not cooperative enough, adding that the first Bush had left them a White House missing "even basic office supplies," and had not offered briefings to incoming staff. As reported by the NYT:
It is clear that in addition to the mandates of the transition law, some old grudges are playing out. Mr. Clinton's aides bitterly maintain that the administration of Mr. Bush's father did little to help the incoming Clinton team at the end of 1992, after a hard-fought campaign. They arrived, they say, to a White House lacking even basic office supplies.
Oddly enough, I can find no reporting in the New York Times along these lines from the actual transition of 1993; only retroactive complaints during the 2001 transition, when the Clintons needed a plausible motive for their behavior. In fact, most blame the truly disorganized Clinton transition, not on Bush 41, but on Clinton's continuous campaigning, appointing Cabinet members before appointing a Chief of Staff, and letting the "gays in the military" issue take up too much ink during the transition.
Obama learned from the mistakes of Clinton in transition (as he has shown an ability to do in other areas), and had the benefit of an extremely cooperative Bush administration to keep his transition running well.
During yesterday's peaceful and positive transition, commentators gave the Clinton crew a pass on its bad behavior during 2001. They similarly gave a pass to 2001's protesters, many of whom waved "Hail to the Thief" signs at Bush's limo on Inauguration Day, blaming the behavior on the hotly contested election.
Certainly, tempers were high, but was a hotly contested election really an excuse? Let's engage in a little counter-factual (It's no "Jewish Gaza," but stick with me). Try to imagine if you will, a scenario in which John McCain had lost a very close election to Barack Obama, coming just shy of the the electoral college total because of a handful of votes in one state. Can you see a scenario in which Mr. "Country First" would not concede after the first prescribed recount?
Can you further imagine a Bush White House, weary after eight years of tough decisions and low approval ratings, begrudging the Obama administration help during the transition because they were mad McCain did not win? Can you imagine Bush staff taking the "O"s from their keyboards with them and leaving their mounds of trash behind? And, can you imagine the uproar if they had shown that kind of disrespect?
It's hard even to imagine right-wing protesters showing up on Inauguration Day to protest the new president's very legitimacy, though you might have been able to find a few. In fact the only bad behavior of note during yesterday's Inauguration festivities came from Democratic supporters still venting their Bush hatred eight years later by chanting "na, na, na, na, hey, hey, hey, good-bye" to the outgoing president.
You saw in yesterday's Bush, embracing his predecessor and wistfully waving to unfriendly crowds, an echo of the "uniter not divider" he always wanted to be. History intervened on Sept. 11, 2001, and required Bush to make hard, often unpopular decisions because he was putting the good of the nation before his own good image. In many ways, his success in keeping us safe from foreign threats has given Obama the luxury of credibly being a "uniter not divider" focused on domestic problems as he maintains many of the hard-fought security measures Bush put in place.
Obama yesterday urged the nation to "put away childish things." Obama's own supporters and appointees (many from the Clinton administration) could learn that very lesson from the extremely adult behavior of the outgoing Bush administration. In the history of America's peaceful and positive transitions, we should not take that important ingredient for granted.
Update: Possible shenanigans on the part of departing Bushies? A little early to say, but it looks rather innocent. Liberals will undoubtedly have a conniption without much proof or shame, however.
