Bill Clinton = tough. George W. Bush = not tough.

I've been asked to defend my assertion that Bill Clinton "built up American power." Since Clinton shrank the military substantially, it's a fair question (though it's worth noting that the cuts began under Bush I and continued under Bush II). So how did Clinton make us tougher?

1. He kept us out of wars. A military is a lot more intimidating when you don't use it, because then you can credibly threaten to use it. The essential element of "Pax Americana" was the "Pax" part - countries didn't fight each other because they knew the U.S could freely intervene to support whichever side we wanted. Now, with our military bogged down in Iraq, we don't have a credible threat to stop Russia from pulverizing one of our allies, which it did last week.

2. He supported economic growth at home. Clinton's polices of deficit reduction, public investment, free immigration, and increased trade were all very pro-growth. More GDP means more ability to spend money on the military. Other countries knew that with a strongly growing GDP, the U.S. could whip out a hundred aircraft carriers or a thousand ICBMs if it ever came down to it (just like we did in the 40s and 60s, respectively). Contrast this with what has happened under Bush - deficits, reduced public investment, and restrictions on high-skilled immigration. We spend more on our military, but it's all deficit spending now, so other countries know this is all we've got.

3. He didn't borrow a ton of money from foreign governments. Lots of historians believe that great nations and empires fall when they become massively indebted to foreign powers. Whether or not you believe that, it's certainly true that the trillions of dollars we currently owe to China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia give us decreased leverage over those countries (which just happen to be our major rivals).

4. He kept our alliances strong. Actually, Clinton could have done a better job on this if he had established a stronger alliance with India (as Bush is now doing, to his credit). But Clinton kept up our alliances with Britain, France, Germany, South Korea, and Singapore, which Bush has let go to the dogs. Allies are very important, and having good ones massively increases a nation's power. Bush forgot that.

So that is what Clinton did to increase America's power in the world. And look at the results he got:

1. China backs down (1996). China, under the nationalist leadership of Jiang Zemin, threatened Taiwan in 1996 by launching a bunch of missiles in its direction. Clinton immediately sent a couple of aircraft carriers to the region, and China backed down.

2. North Korea backs down (1994). North Korea started its nuclear program in the early '90s. When we found out North Korea was creating plutonium, Clinton immediately threatened war. The North Koreans took us seriously, and agreed to the 1994 "Agreed Framework" deal, where we pay for their electricity and they stop the nuclear program. But when Bush came to power, they started the program again, and this time Bush refused to negotiate (because that would tarnish his faux tough-guy image), and had no credible threat (because he was fixated on using all our strength to invade Iraq). So the North Koreans got the bomb, and lo and behold, there was Bush, five years later, begging them to take the same deal Clinton got.

3. Russia backs down (1995 and 1999). When Serbia lent military aid to the brutal Bosnian Serbs in the early '90s, and when it sent its "security police" into Kosovo in 1999, it did so with the strong backing of Russia. Both times, Clinton bombed Serbia, over the strong protests of the Russians. But both times, the Russians shut up and let Serbia lose, because they knew they couldn't mess with the U.S. Contrast this with what happened in Georgia last week.

So basically, the evidence is overwhelming that the U.S. was far more powerful in the international arena during the Clinton years than we are now. That doesn't make it 100% Clinton's doing, but there's obviously a very strong case to be made. Anyone who still thinks of the Republicans as the tougher party should chew on that.