(not totally local, but I mentioned the Empower Change Summit yesterday, so I thought I’d update)

So I spent Saturday on the campus of UCLA, at the American Democracy Institute’s “Empower Change Summit,” a gathering of aorund 3,000 young people, to interact and discuss the ways in which they can be a force for social change.  The ADI describes itself as a nonpartisan organization built on shared values (though they are, to be honest, typically progressive), dedicated to being a leadership gateway, inspiring people to create change on their own in a bid to make democracy more relevant to people’s lives.  The desire for a new model of political engagement, one that exists both within and without the electoral sphere, which foregrounds values and principles and encourages public citizenship and the change we can make in our daily lives, is noble.  But it was unfortunately turned briefly into a world-class spin session during the closing speech by former President Bill Clinton.

John Hart, the CEO of the American Democracy Institute and a former official in the Clinton Administration, has put together several of these summits around the country.  They feature speakers and small-group “workshops” where peer leaders discuss the opportunities for involvement on a variety of subjects.  One of the workshops I attended concerned voter empowerment, where ADI members unveiled “I Vote, You Vote,” a social networking tool for voter registration and engagement that essentially brings peer-to-peer mobilization to the online sphere.  Considering that 54% of all voters in the youth demo, according to one poll, actually went out to vote because they were asked by a friend or family member, this is an exciting effort.  I was happy to see thousands of young people giving up their Saturday, united by their willingness to make a difference in new and innovative ways.

Obviously, the relationship between Hart and the Clintons (Hillary was the founding honorary chair of ADI) gives him the opportunity to add a real draw to the event.  So Bill Clinton’s closing address was heavily anticipated by those who files into Royce Hall.  The last time I saw Clinton speak was at a campaign event in Ann Arbor in 1992, so I shared this anticipation.

There’s a rough transcript here.  First of all, Clinton is an exceedingly brilliant man.  Without notes, he delivered a statistic-heavy speech about the challenges facing America and the world and how the next generation can help solve them.  It was a speech focused on big change, about the need to deal with persistent, enduring national and global inequality; to reverse unsustainable energy patterns and resource depletion; and to understand the fact that citizens are now more interconnected than any of us can manage, yet also prone to identity conflicts.  These are some of the topics that the Clinton Global Initiative seeks to counteract, through managing and “operationalizing” charitable giving into effective projects, like delivering AIDS drugs to the developing world, or green building and retrofitting projects in urban environments (there was a LOT about clean energy in the speech).  But he was adamant that citizen action and nongovernmental organizations cannot supplant the need for effective government.  He cited the example of Denmark, “governed by a conservative coalition,” who grew their economy by 50% with no additional energy use, and a reduction in greenhouse gases, while also having the lowest inequality in the developed world, because their focus on green jobs became an economic engine.  He discussed Ron Suskind’s book The One Percent Doctrine and the famous blind quote about “the reality-based community,” saying as a rejoinder “I spent my childhood in an alcoholic home, trying to get into the reality-based world, and I like it here.”  So it was a speech that was open about the challenges we face, but passionate about how we can leverage the energy and engagement of the next generation to meet them.  That requires being a good global citizen, by participating both in the political sphere and through civil society.

I give that much detail about the whole of the speech so you can understand how completely out of left field this next segment came, as I quote the rough transcript:

And one last thing: we’re working toward a presidential campaign.  But what you need to do is make sure the election is not taken from you by triviality.  I watched the debate for 2 hours.  And I didn’t mind Hillary being asked the immigration question, I minded that none of the other candidates were asked about it and had 30 seconds to respond.  And if we turn immigration into a 30-second sound bite, the politics of fear and division will win.  We have 12 million people here undocumented and most of them are working.  Nobody wants to discriminate against people who have come here legally, but you can’t throw out all those people either.  This is a mind-boggling problem.  And don’t you let them turn it into a 10-second soundbite.  And no president gives drivers licenses.  The states do that.  But that soundbite allows people to fulminate.  It’s a serious issue.  And climate change is a serious issue.  But I didn’t learn anything about climate change, education, healthcare, the most urgent domestic problem that most families face, about wage stagnation, about how our young people can afford college after deliberate government policies making it harder to afford college-right now, you have a better chance of going to college if you’re at the top 25% of your income group and the bottom 25% of your class than the other way around, and less if it’s vice versa.  No matter who you are, this is your life, and there will never be a time when citizen action can supplant the need for effective government.

The transcript misses one incredibly crucial part of that.  Before President Clinton said that he didn’t learn anything in the debate about climate change, education, etc. (which is a legitimate critique), he said that “I learned something in the debate about Iran.  I learned why to vote for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, and I learned why not to vote for it.  I learned that from Senator Biden, by the way, not from any of those who said that it could authorize the President to go to war.  It doesn’t authorize that, and everybody knows it.”

Let me again set the scene.  This was a speech at a nonpartisan event, given to a group of young people who obviously have a lot of enthusiasm for Bill Clinton, and look up to him as an authority figure.  I found it completely inappropriate for him to turn what was an interesting speech into what you might hear on a conference call with Mark Penn.  Furthermore, note the “listen to your elders, I know better” tone here.  After citing voluminous statistics throughout the speech, Clinton waves away legitimate concerns about the Kyl-Lieberman vote with a dismissive “It doesn’t authorize that, and everybody knows it.”  No reasons, no citation of the actual text, just a nod to “what Senator Biden said” without explicitly stating what it was.  Here’s the first thing Biden said.

Joe Biden: Well, I think it can be used as declaration.

Biden went on to talk about how the vote caused a ripple effect of rising oil prices, driving moderates underground in Afghanistan and Pakistan, perpetuating the myth that America is on a crusade against Islam, but also about emboldening Bush to “make a move if he chooses to do so.”

There’s also the factor that Clinton’s position reflects a continued naive view of the machinations of George W. Bush.  Indeed, one of Bush’s key talking points during the Iraq debate was that the Congress voted 98-0 for regime change under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.  What the Congress says obviously matters, and calling a sovereign nation’s Army a terrorist organization is unnecessarily combative.

But that’s a bit besides the point.  The fact is that Bill Clinton used his platform to very subtly and cleverly turn a nonpartisan speech into a campaign event.  Clinton is an asset that no other candidate has, someone who still holds the trust of the American people, particularly those for whom the absence of true Presidential leadership has made the heart grow fonder.  If he’s going to advocate on his wife’s behalf, which is absolutely his right, he should at least do it with some intellectual honesty, and he shouldn’t wrap a critique of the media as a whole into what he really explains as a critique of the media’s treatment of his preferred candidate.