What has happened to the presidency of “change”? The word appeared 11 times in Clinton’s inaugural address. Its central theme was the need to “make change our friend,” perhaps the most insipid call to arms ever offered by a president, but undoubtedly sincerely meant. Why? Because to be a champion of change-undefined, generic change-was Clinton’s way of proclaiming himself a moderate reformer unbound by ideology.
Hence the great irony, and injustice, that this improviser, this hole-patcher for the welfare state, so devoid of ideological beliefs, should be portrayed as a great liberal ideologue.
– Gays in the military? It gave off ideological vibes, but beyond being a political payoff, it was for Clinton more of a fix-it for a gap in the existing structure of civil rights.
– Re-inventing government? It sounds radical but it is nothing more than a fancy way of saying “bureaucratic reform.”
– Health care? Clinton’s fatal health-care plan did indeed indelibly mark him as a big spending, Great Society liberal. But that perfectly illustrates his dilemma: the reformer mistaken for the revolutionary.
If Clinton had really wanted a revolution in health care, he would have proposed a single-payer Canadian-type plan. He probably should have. It would have been perfectly in line with social democratic tradition. It would have been much simpler to explain and defend. And it could hardly have met a more disastrous fate in the Congress than did Clinton’s actual plan. Instead, he proposed a parody of Clinton reformism: a plan of so many patches and joins and fixes, of bureaus and commissions and boards, a machine of such grotesque complexity as to be laughed out of town.
And now that the conservative revolutionaries have taken over Congress, what’s the reformist liberal, the apostle of change to do? With change coming every day from the House of Representatives, Clinton has discovered that change is no longer his friend. And lacking any ideological beliefs to anchor him, he is lost.
He has, however, chosen a strategy. Gone is the reformist liberalism of change. In its place is what Kevin Phillips once called reactionary liberalism: holding fast to the structures and constituencies of the welfare state, come what may. Clinton’s new role is to stand in the schoolhouse door against the barbarians who would take food out of the mouths of babes and bureaucrats.
The perfect symbol of this strategy is Clinton’s photo-op grandstanding on school lunches. As part of their “war on kids,” said the president, “the Republicans want to cut the school lunch program that’s helped our children thrive for 50 years.”
More Top Picks Best Eye Care Monitors For Programmers
Now, it turns out that Republicans are not cutting the school lunch program. They are increasing it by about 4 percent a year for the next five years. This is about 2 percent less than Clinton would like. But that does not make it a cut.
Nor does it starve the poor. Why? Because the school lunch program is not, as many assume, reserved just for poor kids. Fully 45 percent of the kids in the program are not poor. By the administration’s own figures, these non-poor kids get one $1 out of $7-14 percent-of the federal subsidy. Thus even if you call the Republican increase a cut, that still leaves in place an enormous margin of protection for the poor.
From Clinton’s perspective, however, these are details. What counts is that he has an issue and a role. The role, unfortunately, is almost entirely reactive. Except for the me-too middle-class tax cut that he proposed in the desperate days after the November election, he has offered but one notable domestic initiative: a hike in the minimum wage.
That, too, illustrates starkly the dilemmas of modern liberalism. Classic, vibrant liberalism constructed the social safety net and handed out societal goodies by taxing the country’s bounty. By now, however, the bounty is less bountiful and taxation is too taxing. The welfare state is broke. Yet the politician’s impulse to continue giving what he does not have remains undiminished. What to do?
Use the federal power to force others to pay for the benefits. With unfunded mandates on state government now largely outlawed, an unfunded mandate on private employers will have to do. No pain to the federal purse; all praise to the politicians.
The minimum wage hike is about all that is left of the presidency of change. Clinton’s new role, defender of the status quo, is practically enshrined in his budget, a document of choices avoided, deficits extended, and responsibility abdicated to the opposition.
The 1996 campaign shapes up to be perhaps the most significant of the post-war era. A coherent, energetic conservative critique of the welfare state will go up against … what? Clinton’s early ameliorative liberalism has disappeared. In its place is a highly reactive, defensive liberalism. It is a sorry stance, devoid of energy or initiative, redeemable only by the Republicans themselves, should they grossly overreach. Having lost his wan claim on change, Clinton is running on hope.