The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

GIVE THE GUY A BREAK. THE GAME OF GOTCHA, THE rush to bash Bill Clinton for backpedaling on his campaign promises, has got out of hand -- and then some. The daily newscasts introduced with the words "Clinton changed his mind again today" are becoming reminiscent of Chevy Chase's famous Saturday Night Live bulletins -- "This just in: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead." There are two concerns here, and they need to be separated. Clinton's problem isn't broken pledges; it is the disingenuousness he displays as he breaks them. Only the latter is indefensible; coupling them as equal sins is silly.

First to substance. It is obvious, or should be, that the only thing worse than breaking a stupid promise is keeping it. Clinton is right to say it would be foolish to keep those pledges that changing circumstances dictate should be shaved or abandoned. Consider a few currently causing the media apoplexy:

In foreign affairs, the President-elect has been hit for adopting George Bush's Haitian refugee policy and the outgoing Administration's nuanced response to China's human-rights violations. As the chore changes from campaigning to governing, both of Clinton's "new" positions seem proper. The real test of Clinton's professed commitment to human rights for Haitians will turn on his efforts to change that nation's repressive policies. China is a trickier case, and Clinton's newly expressed caution is well placed. The U.S. indeed has "a big stake in not isolating" China. If Beijing continues its economic liberalization, a domestic political thaw will eventually follow. Clinton should avoid any action that could fuel the Chinese leaders' worst impulses; a reversion would have consequences not only for the Chinese but for all of East Asia, whose galloping economy represents the best market for America's products.

Clinton's evolving concern with America's deficit should be similarly welcomed. A Democratic President who forgoes his party's traditional obsession with policies that redistribute the wealth in favor of programs that address the economy's most severe constraint should be applauded. And whether or not any of the rest of his "New Democrat" agenda becomes law, if Clinton substantially reduces the debt he will be widely hailed. So Clinton is right to back off his plan for a middle-class tax cut and right again to "revisit" the proposal to increase gasoline taxes, regressive levies he routinely dismissed as unfair during the campaign. He is even right to soften his campaign rhetoric about halving the deficit in four years, downgrading that objective from a pledge to a "goal." Backing away from an unrealistic target sooner rather than later can save him considerable political trouble down the line -- as long as he guards against eroding the discipline necessary to cut the debt as special pleaders seek increased funding for their pet projects. Every step that seriously swipes at the deficit will require a time-consuming dance of consensus building. Assuming that Clinton's fancy footwork represents the beginning of this exercise, it is wrongheaded to beat on the new Administration for slipping its timetable. Speed would be nice, but it is better by far to take the time to get it right at first, rather than do it fast and have to repair mistakes later.

Trouble is, getting it right requires telling it straight, and despite Clinton's repeated insistence that he's doing just that, he isn't. Virtually none of Clinton's recent explanations of why he has shifted his positions on various domestic policies are true. He did use his middle-class tax cut proposal to capture votes successfully in last year's Democratic primaries. And despite his denial ("I don't know who led you to believe that"), Clinton promised in June to have a spate of economic reform bills "ready the day after I'm inaugurated."

Psychiatry may be capable of explaining such behavior, and perhaps the security of office will calm Clinton down. But for now, what is most distressing is Clinton's failure to follow the logic of his most astute observation. If he is right when he says that changing circumstances mandate changing views -- and he is -- he should say so and leave it at that. He need not fear the public's reaction. The lesson of last fall's election, as put succinctly by Clinton's new Budget Director, Leon Panetta, is that "the people have said, 'Don't kid us anymore. Just tell us the truth.' " Why Clinton can't grasp this fact is anyone's guess. All we know is that we have been around this block before. Clinton's inability to come clean about his draft dodging during the campaign appears to have telegraphed an ongoing discomfort with uncomfortable truths, a character flaw that could cripple his effectiveness. "The lack of confidence in our leaders is our No. 1 problem," Clinton said last winter. "I mean to change that if I'm elected, because unless you restore the country's belief in its government and its faith in the pronouncements of the President, you'll never be able to get done any of the tough things the next President is going to have to do."

Recall your words, Mr. Clinton. The way out is in your own head.