But if George Bush is losing this election Bill Clinton hasn’t quite won it yet. The same poll showed that only 35 percent trust Clinton with the responsibilities of the presidency (43 percent trust Bush). This may be a sign the public-which hasn’t had much patience with adultery rumors or Hillary-bashing-is beginning to fix on the real character issue facing Clinton this year: his tendency to squish on issues, his obsessive need to finesse all the people all of the time.
In his acceptance speech, Bush nailed Clinton on his most famous squish-the Gulf War Profile in Courage: “I guess I would’ve voted with the majority [of the Senate to authorize the war]. But I agree with the arguments the minority made.” Bush is also right to identify Clinton’s position(s) on the free-trade pact with Mexico as a squish-in-progress. During the primaries, Clinton acknowledged-at times courageously, in front of labor audiences-that the treaty might cost some manufacturing jobs but said the opportunities created would be worth the pain. He also said he’d want retraining programs for displaced workers and environmental safeguards-a subclause that suddenly has become an excuse for going soft on the deal (both are real issues, but not real enough to jeopardize a historic agreement). My guess is he’ll ultimately support free trade-to do otherwise would be a monumental philosophical sellout-but his dithering isn’t very presidential.
At the heart of Clinton’s squishiness on trade and other issues is a newfound desire to avoid combat in the war between the Democratic Party’s radical middle and reactionary left. As chairman of the party’s most intellectually adventurous group, the Democratic Leadership Council, Clinton proselytized about the need to overhaul government. He said Democrats had to prove they wouldn’t just “raise taxes and give the money to public employees or poor people who won’t spend it right.” As governor, he took on the teachers’ union (over competency testing) and endorsed the bureaucracy-busting tactics popularized by David Osborne in his best-selling book, “Reinventing Government.” You don’t hear much of that any more especially since Clinton was endorsed by both teachers’unions (AFT and NEA) and the state, county and municipal workers’ union (AFSCME). Given their support, Clinton’s ability to “spend it right”-and not cave in to labor’s reflexive need to protect the past-has become a central concern in this election.
One way for Clinton to show his independence would be to condemn the brain-dead education bill HR 4323 recently passed by the House of Representatives at the behest of the NEA. This abomination would deny federal money for private–and public–school choice programs (Clinton favors the latter). It would also end federal support for national academic standards and state testing programs (which Clinton has fought for). “It’s hard to overestimate the impact the teachers’ unions have on the Democrats in Congress,” says Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander. “Clinton should have made the kind of speech to the NEA that Kennedy made to the Baptists in 1960. But he told them what they wanted to hear.”
An even more important test of Clinton’s ability to overcome the Squish Factor is coming soon in Philadelphia, where liberal Mayor Ed Rendell-faced with municipal bankruptcy-has demanded the sort of changes Clinton used to support: privatizing some city services, abolishing antiquated union work rules, building more competition and accountability into public services. The union (AFSCME) has fought him every step of the way. It even opposed Rendell’s plan for a suggestion box: any city employee who came up with a money-saving idea would receive 10 percent of the savings up to $15,000.
A strike is imminent. It’s probably unfair to ask a presidential candidate to choose sides in a local labor dispute, but so be it: is Clinton with Rendell or the union? After all, this Philadelphia story speaks directly to an issue the candidate himself raised: can a Democrat be trusted to run the country without giving away the store? Would Clinton, as president, usher in a new era of tough-minded public altruism-or would he be the squishy prisoner of liberalism past? It’s an open question, perhaps the most important one left for Clinton to answer.
