The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

"The stench of failure hangs over ((the White House)). The people know it, judging from the opinion polls. By his own reckoning, ((he)) became President . . . so that America could regain industrial strength ((and)) put all its people to work . . . But the economy totters . . . What is lacking is any clear sense of direction . . . Only a President can lead in defining a strategy. Only a leader can succeed as President."

As Bill Clinton seeks to understand his quick transit from hero to goat (and hopefully back to hero) -- the roller-coaster common to the modern presidency -- this assessment from a 1983 New York Times editorial has become a totem among senior Administration officials. "Reagan was a goner, right?" says a Clinton adviser. "But then the business cycle took an upturn, and he won big a year later. Reagan's ups and downs remind us to take the long view. Bill Clinton won't be dead until he's laid out with his sax." It's simple, the President himself explained privately to a group of aides at Camp David on Jan. 30: "If we create jobs and reform health care, we'll be returned to office. If we don't, we won't."

But how, exactly, does Clinton do that? The first step, a White House aide suggests, "is to adopt ((Louisiana Senator)) John Breaux's prescription." Breaux is trying to live up to the injunction of Clinton political adviser ) James Carville, who preaches that a lasting turnaround in Clinton's fortunes depends on rediscovering "what we're about." In other words, Clinton has to tack back to the center; he has to embrace, in law, the proposals that got him elected in the first place. Breaux understands the public's antipathy to taxes of any kind and, for openers, wants the President's $71 billion energy tax to be cut in half. (The shortfall would be covered by further spending cuts.) More important, Breaux wants a "down payment" of perhaps $5 billion for welfare reform. Clinton's "tough talk on welfare was the only issue that moved votes in a major way during the campaign," argues Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist group Clinton once chaired. "Breaux means to help Clinton push it."

But flashing his "New Democrat" colors will get Clinton only so far. At this point, says a Clinton aide, "we are impacting the economy only negatively. We've been very good at scaring the business community into a wait-and-see attitude, which is where things will remain if health reform fails or if our solution mandates huge additional costs for employers."

If Breaux's proposals form the basis of a compromise that ensures Senate passage of Clinton's economic plan -- and helps shred the tax-and-spend label that has contributed to the President's dive in the polls -- then a health- care-reform scheme that proves nonthreatening to business could fuel a sustained economic recovery. "The bad news is that the President's underlying liberal instincts could cause us to propose a health bill that takes care of the uninsured but does nothing to generate jobs," says a White House aide. "The good news is that it's largely in our hands to control the outcome. Focus, discipline, a stronger White House staff can help us, but everyone knows how the bottom line will be measured. It's the condition of the collective pocketbook on Election Day that counts." And no matter how clever a politician is, there is simply no way to spin a sense of economic well-being into an empty wallet.