In Search of Bill Clinton - (excerpt)
[return]
Bill Clinton is a psychological puzzle.
When President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was revealed in January 1998, everyone seemed to be asking the same question:
What was he thinking? Biographer David Maraniss dubbed this question the “Clinton Enigma.”1 Not only was the general public dumbfounded, but Clinton had stumped even his closest associates. “I’m still mystified by the Clinton paradox,” wrote his former aide George Stephanopoulos. “How could a president so intelligent, so compassionate, and so public- spirited, and so conscious of his place in history, act in such a stupid, selfish, and self-destructive manner?”2 Former senior White House adviser David Gergen also called Clinton “a mass of contradictions,” noting that “he is one of the smartest men ever elected president and he has done some of the dumbest things.”3
Bill Clinton is even a psychological puzzle to himself. In his autobiography, My Life, Clinton describes the moment when he finally had to tell Hillary the truth about his affair with Lewinsky: “I still didn’t fully understand why I had done something so wrong and stupid.”4
Clearly, knowing Bill Clinton well—even being Bill Clinton—is not the same as understanding Bill Clinton.
The idea for this project originated while I was researching my first book, The Hypomanic Edge, where I explored the connection between charisma and hypomanic temperament, a mildly manic personality that imbues some people with the raw ingredients it takes to be a charismatic leader: immense energy, drive, confidence, visionary creativity, infectious enthusiasm, and a sense of personal destiny. They also have problems with impulse control, frequently in the area of sex. While I was conducting my research for The Hypornanic Edge, dozens of people asked me if I thought Bill Clinton fit the profile. It was a question that had occurred to me. If Clinton had this mildly manic temperament, it would explain a great deal about both his strengths and weaknesses, why he is both so gifted and so flawed. This may be the first piece of the puzzle.
Psychiatrists have been aware of this mildly manic character type for almost a hundred years, yet the literature about these people is surprisingly thin: probably because we don’t see them in our clinical offices very often, as they rarely feel the need to seek psychiatric help. In fact, we are more likely to see them among our more driven and successful colleagues. These people have been given a dozen names over the history of psychiatry: manic disposition (Eugen Bleuler, 1916); manic temperament (Emil Kraepelin, 1921); hypomanic character (Ernst Kretschnier, 1926); hyperthymic personality (Kurt Schneider, 1950); hyperthymic tern perament (H. S. Akiskal and C. Mallya, 1987); exuberant (Kay Jamison, 2O04). But the basic behavioral descriptions have been more or less the same. Whether or not the theorist labels them as having a disorder, each notes the same paradox: These people are endowed with special gifts that can make them highly successful and also with unique vulnerabilities that can spell their downfall.
In 1975, Columbia University psychiatrist Ronald Fieve, one of the people credited with the discovery of lithium as a treatment for bipolar disorder, began writing about positive traits associated with what he called the “hypomanic advantage.”6 In 1992, he proposed a new diagnosis, bipolar disorder JIB (“B” stands for beneficial), which he described as “a desirable disorder.” The field of psychiatry needs to be “re-educated,” he argued, to value this type of person whom we have tended to parhologize. While the patients he described do suffer from periodic depression— hence the bipolar diagnosis—in their hypomanic phase they are the “movers and shakers” who “produce the best of what human beings can contribute to society.”7 In his 2007 book Bipolar II, Fieve cited Bill Clinton as a prime example:
“When I think of an exuberant or hypomanic politician, former President Clinton comes quickly to mind, particularly with his magnetic charm and high-spirited personality. . . his garrulous and exuberant political style is definitely the hypomanic type. Not only is the former president quick thinking, verbose, and mildly elated, he is witty, talks ast, and is an ardent debater . . . obviously he is a risk taker and a bit nverzealous when it comes to the opposite sex, but here again risk taking and overly zealous behavior are two hypomanic qualities.”8
Because my field has not been able to agree on what to call these people, I chose the term: hypomanic temperament. We see in these people the exact same constellation of traits found in mania, but to a lesser iegree. Hypo, the Greek prefix for “less than,” makes it clear we are Lalking about traits that are like mania but less extreme. I chose the term temperament for two reasons: first, because a temperament is an inborn, biologically based trait that is stable over the life course, and, second, because a temperament is not an illness, but a basic predisposition, which ike any other has strengths and weaknesses. Below is a narrative de;cription of the hypomanic temperament synthesized from the literature and my own observations.
The person of hypomanic temperament is filled with a high degree of energy and is very active in both work and other pursuits. They need little sleep, less than six hours. They are restless and impatient. They are quick thinking—thoughts race through their heads, and they jump from idea to idea. They can be distracted, attending to too many things at once. They are creative and unconventional (even if they are conservative), both thinking and living “outside the box.” They talk fast, talk a lot, and tend to dominate conversations. They are driven, ambitious, and hard working. They set goals that seem grandiose, yet they appear supremely confident of success. They feel like people of destiny—maybe even destined to change the world in some way. They are gifted evangelists and sales people who win converts to their vision. Their mood is exuberant, sunny, elated, and that mood is infectious, energizing those around them. They are charismatic, persuasive, and attractive. They are charming, witty, gregarious, and good at making people laugh. They like to be the center of attention, want to be the boss, and seek to be the alpha male or female in any group, and thus often come in conflict with authority. They are pushy, meddlesome, and don’t take no for an answer. Minor obstacles or delays can easily irritate them and their temper can be unpredictably explosive, but their rages usually pass quickly. They can be suspicious and hostile toward people they feel are impeding their plans or just “don’t get it.” They are impulsive and urgently want to verbalize and act on an idea or desire as soon as it occurs to them, without first thinking through the realistic consequences. They are risk takers, who seem oblivious to obvious dangers. They have a large libido, are highly sexually active, and can show poor judgment in their sexual behavior. They seek stimulation and excitemeot. They have an addictive personality and are prone to both chemical and behavioral addictions. They appear to have poor insight into why some of their actions antagonize others or sometimes produce disastrous results.
The relationship between mania and hypomania is more than descriptive; the two groups actually tend to be related—literally, by blood: Hypomanics and people with manic-depressive disorder tend to run in the same family, which suggests there is a true genetic link. Historically, many of the observations psychiatrists have made about people with hypomanic temperamentwere based ontheir contacts withthe high-achieving, high-energy relatives of their manic-depressive patients. As mental health professionals we see things through the lens of illness, because that’s what we study. But we may be looking through the telescope backwards. It is not that hypomanics have a mild form of their relatives’ disease, but rather the inverse. The patient is manifesting a pathological expression of a set of genes that, in most cases, are on balance advantageous, which is most likely why they have survived over tens of thousands of years of natural selection. Indeed, relatives of manic patients (who tend to be high in hypomania) have consistently been found to be far above average in income, occupational achievement, and creativity.9
Hypomanic temperament should not be confused with the hypomanic episode described in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). An episode, as the name implies, represents a dramatic change in a person’s normal “premorbid” functioning. According to DSM-IV, “the episode is associated with an unequivocal change in functioning that is uncharacteristic of the person when not symptomatic.”° All of a sudden, a person in a hypomanic episode stops acting like his or her normal self. The person becomes excited, stops sleeping, becomes aggressive, starts spending money, initiates affairs, etc.—and this behavior represents an alarming change. In hypomanic temperament, by contrast, mildly manic traits are stable and fully integrated into the personality. That is the person’s normal self.
Hypomanic temperament is not a mental illness, and it is not included as a diagnosis in the DSM-I V. Because this book is about a real person, Bill Clinton, this is more than an academic point. No doubt, some people will draw the incorrect conclusion that I am making the case that Bill Clinton has a mental disorder. I am not. If I thought that, I would not hesitate to say it, but my research has not led me to that conclusion.
One of the questions I hope to answer in this book, which comprises also part of the Clinton puzzle, is: What makes him so talented as a politician? To understand how Clinton became the dark horse who came from nowhere to win the presidency, one must understand his hypomanic temperament. Clinton has several hypomanic traits that have been integral to his success. The most obvious of these is his charisma. “Can you remember the name of the jockey who rode Secretariat?” Paul Begala, Clinton’s former political adviser, asked an auditorium of 150 people at the 2005 Clinton Presidential Conference at Hofstra University. One guy could, but the rest had no idea. “That’s because it didn’t matter who rode him. He was one of the greatest race horses of all time. Being Clinton’s campaign adviser was like riding Secretariat.” Secretariat, in fact, was Clinton’s nickname, bestowed on him by his 1992 presidential campaign staff.
Another factor is his energy. It is well known that Clinton requires little sleep. He is an inexhaustible campaigner, who runs at full speed for days with only a few catnaps. Like so many others, veteran political reporter Joe Klein recalls being stunned by Clinton’s seemingly unlimited capacity for campaigning: “On the night before the New Hampshire primary, well after the last scheduled appearance, I found Clinton going
from table to table at a local restaurant, shaking hands, chatting with anyone willing to engage him. He went from restaurant to restaurant through the dinner hour, and then made a tour of the bowling alleys of Manchester-until just past midnight, when there were no more hands to shake, no more places to go except his hotel. He was exhausted and flu-ridden; his face was flushed, his eyes were red and bleary, but he wasn’t quite ready to pack it in. ‘You want to bowl a game?’ he asked me.”11
Creativity is another important hypomanic asset. Dozens of studies point to greater creativity in mildly manic individuals, in part because their overactive minds generate so many ideas.12 It’s almost impossible to spend much time with Clinton and not notice, as one associate put it, that his “brain is lust bursting with ideas that just pour out of him.”3 George Stephanopoulos wrote that Clinton would call him with “fifty ideas a day.”4 One of Clinton’s great strengths is his ability to come up with innovative policy ideas that transcend conceptual and political categories.
Finally, Clinton’s expansive hypomanic mood makes him sunny, optimistic, and infectiously exuberant. People regularly describe becoming euphoric in his presence, as if he were a drug. This ability to excite those around him is a large part of what makes him so seductive. Stella O’Leary, head of Irish American Democrats, who has spent a lot of time with both Clintons, told me: “He’s like the Pied Piper. Everybody is going in the same direction and it’s very joyous. It’s energizing. It’s fun. It’s life lived at its peak. Your nerves are just going. This is where you want to be. This is it. ft’s exciting, and for women it’s sexual. You can’t resist it.”15
There is a biological reason for all of this. Neurologically, people with any degree of mania are like cars with Porsche engines but no brakes. The parts of the brain that fuel the drives motivating all human behavior—sex, aggression, hunger, need for affiliation, etc.—are heightened to a fever pitch. This motivational center, called the limbic system, is one of the oldest structures in the brain. It evolved so long ago that the limbic system of a human being is aimost identical to that of a lizard. When the brains of actively manic patients are observed on a PET scan (Positron Emission Tomography), a neuroimaging technique that shows which parts of the brain are most active in real time, key parts of the limbic system light up. When these motivational centers are stimulated, people become excited, energized, and ready for action. They are in go-mode, primed to act—not to think rationally about possible consequences. In normal subjects, falling in love, for example, has been shown to excite this part of the brain.’6 These same centers are also stimulated by drugs and alcohol, which, like all degrees of mania, produce feelings of pleasurable excitement, behavioral disinhibition, and diminished judgment.
This brain process helps answer the “What was he thinking?” question. What I call the think-before-you-act part of the brain doesn’t work well in hypomanics. The limbic system that drives behavior is normally modulated, regulated, and kept in check by inhibitory connections to the cortex, the most advanced part of the brain that controls higher-level thinking. New research shows that in manics, as well as in other people with impulse control problems, layers of cortex immediately surrounding the limbic system are defective, or at least seem to under fire.17 Thus, like a burnt-out circuit breaker, they cannot regulate the surges of powerful energy produced by a hyperexcited limbic system. Therefore, it is not simply a defect in “character”—the charge repeatedly made against Bill Clinton— but a defect in wiring, if you will, that allows hypomanics to blithely act out impulses, oblivious to their probable disastrous consequences.
Though everyone has focused on Clinton’s sex drive, his problems with impulse control have multiple manifestations, as is often the case for most hypomanics. For example, Clinton was constantly battling weight problems because he could not bring his compulsive eating under control. As Maraniss wrote in his Clinton biography, First in His Class, “He was a young man of oversized appetites. Any aide who spent time with him could tell stories of his inhaling apples in a few massive bites, swallowing them core and all. Hot dogs went down so fast they barely touched his teeth. The mansion cook could not bake chocolate chip cookies fast enough. Plates of enchiladas and nachos disappeared in seconds.”8
Hypomanics are also impulsive talkers. They get in trouble for speaking off the top of their head, so much so that one could almost say they suffer from foot-in-mouth disease. This weakness on Clinton’s part was on dramatic display in Hillary’s 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton’s reputation as an astute politician, not to mention his wife’s presidential ambitions, was badly damaged by Clinton’s off-the-cuff remarks.
Clinton also has trouble containing his aggressive impulses. What few among the general public knew, but no one in the White House could avoid knowing, was how uncontrolled his temper really was. David Gergen called him “Mount Vesuvius,” stating that Clinton had the worst temper of any man he had ever met in public life by “a magnitude of at least two.”9 When Bill Clinton was a boy, none of his friends knew of his stepfather Roger Clinton’s physical abuse. As is so often the case, it was a family secret. And within Clinton’s inner circle, his temper has been like a family secret, too, at least until the 2008 primary battle when it was on display, often captured by concealed video recorders. “Shame on you,” Clinton would tell reporters, chastising them for the tone of their election coverage while waving a finger in their face when he didn’t realize he was on camera. While Clinton was chastising them for the tone of their election coverage, he only made it worse when these “purple fits” became the story, and the game became to catch Clinton getting mad. Up until then Clinton had managed to keep his anger management problem under the radar. What he wasn’t prepared for was that the radar has gotten stronger since he last ran for office; today anyone with a cell phone can put video on YouTube.
Sex, hunger, and aggression are basic biological drives, and in Clinton they are all in overdrive. In an earlier era we called these drives appetites, and that was a very descriptive term. This palpably insatiable hunger was integral to his rise. Arkansas senator David Pryor said, “The first time I met him—I knew that he was hungry. You could sense it. It was like meeting a jaguar that was ready to pounce.”° But Clinton’s oversized appetites have also been the source of his falls. In short, Clinton’s success and his excess have a common origin in this biologically based excess of drive. As biographer John Harris noted, “Clinton’s appetites in nearly all respects—for people, ideas, food, women—could be excessive, but this is what ultimately set him apart. . . . voluminous appetites got him in trouble. Voluminous appetites carried him out of trouble.”21
When I conducted the research for this book, I interviewed many people who knew Clinton well. In virtually every case, after I described the traits of the hypomanic temperament, the interviewees were taken aback: “That’s Clinton,” they would say. A number of people asked me if this profile was based on Clinton. In not a single case, did anyone disagree or even express doubts about the description fitting Clinton.
“You could paste his picture over that definition in the dictionary,” said Arkansas reporter Meredith Oakley.
I started this book with a self-flattering conceit: With my expertise in hypomania, I would easily be able to solve the Clinton puzzle that has baffled so many writers. But my conceit was wrong. While I had discovered a hidden factor that helped explain Bill Clinton, it was only one missing piece of the puzzle. Exploring Bill Clinton’s mind was like an extended archeological dig, revealing strata upon strata.
To begin with, while it is well known that Clinton is gifted, he is far more gifted than most realize. While genius is a loaded word, Clinton either is one or borders on it. Of the nearly one hundred people I spoke to, virtually all declared Bill Clinton to be the smartest person they had ever met in their entire lives—and some of them were pretty smart themselves. “Most Americans realize this was a very smart man,” said Alan Blinder, a Princeton economist who served on his economic team. “They don’t realize quite how smart he was, because he was a good enough politician to hide it.”22 Clinton has an almost photographic memory. If he meets someone once for a few minutes, when he runs into them again two years later in a totally different setting, he’ll not only remember their name, he’ll remember the names of their pets. And he reads everything—gets it, remembers it, and integrates it with everything else he’s read and heard. He’s not just a policy wonk—he’s a policy wunderkind. Policy experts in many fields have declared without exaggeration that Clinton knows more about their specialty than they do. David Osborne, author of Laboratories of Democracy, a book about innovative state governments, said: “You call him up and ask, ‘Who’s doing interesting things in housing?’ And he can tell you what everyone is doing—every last housing experiment in every state.”23
But that’s not all. Not only is he off the IQ chart. He’s off several charts. Try this brief thought experiment: Think of the smartest person you know. Now, think of the warmest, most empathic person you know. Odds are you didn’t think of the same person. That’s because these are two completely independent traits that have no statistical relationship to one another. The odds of the same person being the highest on both traits are minuscule. If Clinton were one out of a thousand on both traits, the combined probability would be the product of those two numbers, or one out of a million. When you additionally consider that Clinton is on
the extreme end of the bell-shaped curve on other core inborn traits, such as extraversion, intellectual curiosity, and of course, hypomanic energy, it may seem that Clinton won the genetic lottery in a big way. He simply has more God-given talent than any politician we’ve seen in a long time.
Psychoanalytic interpretations also account for several pieces of the Clinton puzzle. For example, from the time he was born, Clinton has been torn between two women who jealously competed for his affections, and he has been unconsciously replicating this family drama ever since. His grandmother, Edith, who essentially raised him for the first four years of his life, was aggressive, smart, ambitious, rigid, suspicious, and fiercely protective—a personality much like that of Hillary. While most boys marry their mother, I argue that Clinton married his grandmother, who was his de facto mother in his earliest years.
Here lies one of the secrets to understanding the Clinton marriage. Edith was not a warm people person—just the opposite. She was a powerfully intimidating presence, but nonetheless a reassuring one for Bill, whom she guided and protected. One of the things I learned in my research was just how important Hillary has been to Bill. She structures his life, as his grandmother once did, and she has also been his protector, fighting his enemies with the ferocity of a mother lion guarding her cubs.
In Arkansas, Hillary became famous for accosting Bill’s political rivals at public events, loudly challenging their statements about her husband, prompting at least one, sitting governor Frank White, to literally run out the back door when he saw her coming. (She “kicked the dog shit out of him,” remarked Paul Fray, former Clinton campaign co-manager.) In some ways Hillary’s failed campaign for the 2008 nomination reminded me of a standard plot from the sitcoms of the 1970s—the one where the husband and wife switch roles for a week. Predictably, each fails miserably at trying to do what the other one does. One reason the vaunted Clinton machine sputtered in this primary battle was that Hillary was trying to play Bill’s role—the charismatic politician—which is not her forte. And Bill was trying to play Hillary’s role—the loyal attack dog—which is not his. To make matters worse, Bill’s aggressive stance was seen as unbecoming for a former president. The public backlash from Bill’s remarks—calling Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war a “fairy tale,” for example—was incredibly damaging to his wife’s campaign. But this was mild treatment compared to what Hillary used to do to his rivals. Bill must have felt he owed it to Hillary to be her attack dog after she has done the same for him throughout his career. For almost thirty years she was his Edith, and now it was his turn to be hers.
In contrast to Clinton’s grandmother, his mother, Virginia, was a more exuberant free spirit. In his earliest years, when Clinton resided with his grandmother, he could only visit his mother sporadically, much like an affair. Virginia resembles, both in appearance and personality, many of the women he has had affairs with, including Monica Lewinsky. Just as young Bill deeply loved and needed both women who competed for his affections, grown-up Bill has always simultaneously needed a relationship with both types of women, each of whom plays a foundation role in his psyche, the Edith-like Hillary and his Virginia-like lovers. This simple insight sheds light on Clinton’s relationship with Hillary, helping to explain both why he is drawn to her and why, despite the fact that he genuinely loves and depends on her, he still feels the need for other women.
A word on my method: Mental health professionals have been writing psychologically informed biographies, usually called psychobiographies, ever since Freud. But none to my knowledge have ventured outside their office or the library into the real world to interview people who knew their biographical subject. For journalists, this is the standard method of research, of course, but we psychologists are not trained as journalists. While it was not my intention to create a new genre, it was clear to me that I would need to employ the methods of an investigative journalist to have any hope of credibly solving the Clinton enigma. I began to call my approach psycho-journalism, to distinguish it from both conventional journalism and traditional psycho-biography.
Traditionally, psychological biographies are both reductive and overly deterministic. Boiling down the life of an eminent individual to a simple psychological formula always seems to make the subject somehow smaller. But as I got closer to Clinton, something more complex happened: He got both larger and smaller.
The Clinton paradox is that even as he has come to represent in some people’s eyes the essence of carnality, deceit, and selfishness—the lowest aspects of human nature—he is also a larger-than-life embodiment of our highest impulses: a humanitarian, who saves lives by the hundreds of thousands, and a peacemaker, who has healed intractable conflicts around the world.
To explore these aspects of Clinton, I took two international trips. I traveled to Ireland, interviewing most of the major players in the Irish
peace process. What emerged was a portrait of a man who has served as the world’s family therapist, making inspired interventions to heal ancient hatreds. Today the Irish still love Clinton: I found it hard to buy myself a pint of Guinness in Ireland, so many people wanted to buy me a drink when they heard I was writing a book about Bill Clinton. He is one of the most popular people on earth—even as his status in the United States has waxed and waned—in large part because of his peacemaking efforts (just as George Bush is widely despised internationally for waging the Iraq war).
And I traveled to Africa. Each summer Clinton visits Africa to review the work of his foundation. In 2007 I was able attach myself to his entourage. Clinton is saving close to a million lives by bringing cheap AIDS drugs to poor countries, solving a public-health crisis that has stymied the world for decades. Watching thousands of Africans respond to him as if he were a prophet was a powerful experience. He positively glows with euphoria as he walks into the crowds, extending his long arms into the sea of people, while dozens jostle to touch him at once, desperate to lay a hand on his finger, his wrist, or even just the hem of his sleeve.
And a few months later, after I returned from my Africa journey, I was watching Clinton on TV, looking like neither a humanitarian nor a great political talent, as he burst into tirade after tirade in his efforts to help his wife’s dying campaign. Such is the Clinton puzzle. Who is the real Bill Clinton? The adulterer or the family man? The genius or the person who does incomprehensibly stupid things? The humanitarian overflowing with compassion or the self-centered narcissist who explodes with rage? They are all him, of course. And understanding him in all his complexity became my mission.
Oddly, being uncredentialed as a journalist had its advantages. Some of the people I talked to, especially in Arkansas, had very negative views of the press. Many had been interviewed before and felt their words had been “twisted” to portray a Clinton they did not recognize. Being a professor from Johns Hopkins with an earnest demeanor, and a lot of persistence, made it easier to win access to subjects for interviews. My method differed from that of a conventional reporter in several respects. For example, my clinical experience affected the way I approached interviewing my subjects. Whenever possible, I tried to conduct my interviews in person, typically over a long meal at a nice restaurant. My aim was to form a relationship with my interviewees, win their trust, and provide a space where they would feel comfortable opening up. The number of people I interviewed for this biography, between seventy and eighty, is in the normal range, but the length of the interviews—typically between one and two hours—was not. The average transcript was forty pages long.
As a result, I became accustomed to being routinely surprised by what people revealed to me once we got rolling. Friends of the Clinton family, many now in their eighties, told me things about Bill Clinton’s background that have never before been revealed, at least not publicly. While it was never my intent to write a sensationalistic book, in the course of my research I unearthed information about Clinton’s family that many may regard that way.
For example, Clinton’s mother, Virginia, who also had a hypomanic temperament, was hypersexual from a young age, and engaged in numerous affairs over most of her life. She modeled an adulterous lifestyle that young Bill, hypersexual by temperament to begin with, couldn’t help internalizing. This is an important factor in understanding Clinton’s sexual behavior: like mother, like son.
I also learned that the long-standing rumors that Bill Clinton may be illegitimate are perhaps more than rumors. Indeed, I believe that it is possible that I may have found the identity of his true biological father.
In revealing these findings, it is not my purpose to embarrass former president Clinton, invade his privacy, or expose the memory of his mother to opprobrium. It is a clinical imperative that impels me to explore these hidden facets of his life—a public life that came to involve us all in 1998, when the president’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky led to the impeachment of a serving president for the first time since the nineteenth century. For good or ill, it brought the White House, the U.S. government, and the Congress almost to a standstill for many excruciating—and excruciatingly embarrassing—months. Learning the true psychodynamics behind what some historians dubbed “the scandal of the century” promises also, I hope, to give us a better understanding of what lay behind that seminal saga.
Many people have asked me, bottom line, is this a “pro-Clinton book” or an “anti-Clinton book”? I have always said my goal is to understand him, not judge him. But that doesn’t fully answer the question. I think the reader will sense that I like Bill Clinton, and in several respects, admire him. I had that basic feeling going into the project, and the more I learned about him, the more that basic intuition was reinforced. Some of that sympathetic posture is the perspective of a psychotherapist. In our work, having a basic regard for someone, empathizing with them, and even liking them does not preclude you from understanding them. In fact, we believe that it helps. It’s not that I gloss over his flaws—far from it. But my perspective is admittedly a forgiving one, and I often portray his foibles in
comedic terms rather than with condemning tones. Almost thirty years of practicing psychotherapy, not to mention many years as a patient in psychoanalysis, have taught me that only he who is without neurosis should cast the first stone.
Has Clinton, the great seducer, seduced me, too? In part, yes. Jam not immune to his charm, as becomes particularly clear in the final chapter, where I follow him through Africa. But, ultimately, I think my regard for Clinton is based in large part on reasoned judgment. It’s hard for me to see how anyone who has carefully studied Bill Clinton’s life, warts and all, could deny that he is an extraordinarily talented person who has earnestly striven to do good since he was a young child. Indeed, as we shall see, he has accomplished much good: fixing Arkansas’s educational system, helping to mend the U.S. economy, making peace all over the world, and, most recently, saving hundreds of thousands of lives in Africa. Who among Clinton’s critics has accomplished more?
I know from experience that hypomanics elicit extreme reactions. Certainly that has been true with Clinton. Magnetic charisma can make the hypomanic seem larger than life, and their stupid mistakes can make them seem lower than dirt. But neither view portrays them as the whole people they really are. My most earnest desire was to delve more deeply into the truth of who Bill Clinton is, because despite all that has been said and written about him, I didn’t think his story had been fully told.
Finally, a personal note is in order. This story is not about me, but I am a character in the narrative. I cannot take myself out of the plot the way most journalists would. Psychotherapists study people in a very specific and unusual way. Through countless hours of supervision as a method for better understanding them, we are trained to examine our own subjective reactions to our patients, a process we call “analyzing countertransference.” We monitor ourselves both for evidence of distortions stemming from our own biases and unresolved neurotic conflicts and for valid insights our intuition may be producing. Normally, this process of self-analysis is undertaken in private: through clinical supervision, consultation with colleagues, or personal introspection. In the interest of deepening our understanding of Clinton, I’m going to take the risk of exposing these personal reactions both to Clinton and to the people I interviewed, and describe how I was able to interpret them, performing my analysis of countertransference in a very public way on the page.
I can’t take myself out of the plot of this book for yet another reason: As I conducted my research, two narratives became inextricably intertwined: Bill Clinton’s story, and the story of my quest to get that story. For two years, during almost every waking moment, I dedicated my considerable energies toward solving the Clinton puzzle. Along the way I met some remarkable people, had some colorful experiences, and faced some extraordinary issues. I don’t know how I could fully share my conclusions with you, the reader, without including you in the process whereby I reached them.
This, then, is an account of my journey as a roving psychologist, as I traveled from Arkansas to Africa in search of Bill Clinton.