Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie, and ruthless politicians: Why there isn’t anything wrong with having an enemies list.

Why a Ruthless Hillary Clinton and a Ruthless Chris Christie Aren’t the Same Thing

Why a Ruthless Hillary Clinton and a Ruthless Chris Christie Aren’t the Same Thing

Who's winning, who's losing, and why.
Feb. 11 2014 6:47 PM

In Ruthlessness We Trust

But be careful—not all cutthroat politicians are the same.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers remarks after being presented the 2013 Tom Lantos Human Rights Prize December 6, 2013 in Washington, DC.
Are 1992 Hillary Clinton and 2014 Hillary Clinton the same person?

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Let us now praise ruthless men. And women. The two most talked-about potential presidential candidates in 2016 are enduring public examinations of their ruthlessness. In New Jersey federal investigators, the legislature, and the press are looking at whether Gov. Chris Christie knew aides in his office sought to punish a local official for not supporting their boss by closing portions of the George Washington Bridge. At the same time, Hillary Clinton is going through one of the periodic public checkups she has enjoyed since emerging on the national stage in 1992. A new book, HRC, describes a carefully tended Clinton enemies list where the couple kept track of those who had abandoned or betrayed them. The private diaries of a close confidante, first reported on by the Washington Free Beacon, describe first lady Hillary Clinton’s desire to punish everyone from anonymous leakers to an Arkansas publisher during her husband’s presidency.

John Dickerson John Dickerson

John Dickerson is a Slate political columnist, the moderator of CBS’s Face the Nation, and author of On Her Trail. Read his series on the presidency and on risk.

Partisans react to these developments predictably; your opponent’s penchant for ruthlessness is a sign of his or her low character. That’s wrong. Ruthlessness is a necessary political skill, particularly for presidents. The task is to make an assessment about whether a particular politician uses it effectively or not. There are limits to ruthlessness—abuse of power and crippling vindictiveness—but we shouldn’t mistake signs of the trait as necessary proof a politician is locked into its excesses. 

Politics is a profession so clouded with self-love, self-dealing, and greed that in some cases the only way you can make progress is if you use a pickax. That means knowing how to use intimidation and retribution—and recognizing that every tool of the office can be a weapon if you hold it right. In presidential campaigns some voters are uncomfortable with politicians who show an aptitude for arm-twisting. That, in turn, leads to a lot of wasted time as politicians pretend that they are not skilled in the activities required for the job that they’re trying so hard to get. It gets circular fast: You deceive to prove that you are not deceptive. 


Democratic strategist James Carville once famously compared Hillary Clinton with President Obama by suggesting the former first lady had more guts than the president, though Carville referred to a part of the anatomy physiologically unavailable to a female candidate. Reading Diane Blair’s journals you see what Carville was talking about. “HC still in despair that nobody in WH tough and mean enough,” writes the political science professor, a longtime Arkansas friend of the Clintons, who died in 2000 and whose papers were donated to the University of Arkansas. “Most people in this town have no pain threshold,” she quotes Clinton as saying in another entry. When something is blocked in the White House, “HC urging hard ball.” Hillary Clinton spends the weekend reorganizing the White House, planning firings and punishing leakers, but Blair says it ultimately frustrates the first lady because her husband won’t pull the trigger.

These are stories about events more than 20 years ago, but they read with potency because they offer an intimate portrait of a figure who has worked hard to shield herself from penetrating insights.

If voters are ambivalent about toughness in their politicians, they are particularly so about it in female politicians. One of the benefits of the Diane Blair documents is that they offer us a historical marker for national attitudes about women and power in the early 1990s before Clinton became the most influential American female politician of her time. “What voters find slick in Bill Clinton, they find ruthless in Hillary,” reads a strategy memo in the files from the 1992 campaign. “While voters genuinely admire Hillary Clinton’s intelligence and tenacity, they are uncomfortable with these traits in a woman. She needs to project a softer side—some humor, some informality.” 

As first lady, Clinton was a “pioneer in an anachronistic role,” as Blair put it. More than 20 years later, Clinton may still have less room to appear tough than a male candidate. But the question about Clinton’s toughness isn’t limited to public perceptions about it. Now the question is, when does ruthlessness cross the line beyond its utilitarian benefits and into something more damaging?