Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.comment From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Tug of Reagan's political gravity Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:23:38 EST Message-ID: \SE G;COMMENTARY \HD Tug of Reagan's political gravity \BY Rich Loury The newest installment of the political revolution sparked by Ronald Reagan comes from an unlikely ally - Bill Clinton. Mr. Reagan's vision of optimism and social conservatism transformed the Republican Party in 1980 and won elections in 1980, 1984 and 1988. Now the electoral pull of Mr. Reagan's politics has triggered at least a partial transformation of the other party, the Clinton-led Democrats. The Arkansas governor ran a campaign mostly devoid of the liberal policies and attitudes that had dominated the Democratic Party, and made it a perennial loser, since 1968. Liberals can applaud Mr. Clinton's victory, but they should blanch behind the positions that won this "mandate." Near the end of the campaign a questioner during "CBS This Morning," complaining about welfare, told Mr. Clinton that those who don't work shouldn't eat. Mr. Clinton responded: "I agree with you. If people don't work, if they can work, they shouldn't eat." Can you imagine if Mr. Reagan had said that - the cries of insensitivity, racism, mean-spiritedness? But Mr. Clinton moved to the right on welfare and sold to voters his idea of replacing it with workfare. Or how about this from Mr. Clinton: "We're going to empower people to take control of their own lives, then hold them accountable for doing so." Calls for social responsibility had been a staple of Republican rhetoric, and they were usually denounced by Democrats as endorsing meddling in people's lives. Mr. Clinton talked tough on crime, proposing boot camp for nonviolent offenders and supporting capital punishment. He criticized a black rap singer. He advocated cracking down on fathers who don't pay child support. He called for voluntary prayer in school. Absent were prominent appeals for affirmative action, or a defense, say, of laws against reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school. Where Mr. Clinton did adopt liberal positions on social issues - he wants gays to be able to serve in the military and is pro-choice on abortion - he didn't let them overtake the conservative tone of his campaign. On defense, Mr. Clinton maneuvered to what can be considered the right of President Bush. While supporting the Persian Gulf war, he criticized Mr. Bush for allegedly coddling Saddam Hussein before the war. He promised a tougher line on China. And he pushed for a more aggressive policy against Serbia, the aggressor in the Yugoslav civil war. Gone was the blame-America-first rhetoric of recent liberalism. Mr. Clinton's most obvious break with the politics of Ronald Reagan came on economics, with his continual denunciation of "trickle down" economics. But even here there were concessions. He talked of cutting taxes on the middle class instead of raising them. And the accent in his rhetoric was on growth, which Democrats for two decades have considered an unsavory idea. But the thrust of Mr. Clinton's economic program relies on the electoral strategy that has been so successful for incumbent Democrats in Congress - the pork barrel. Mr. Clinton promised almost every special interest group some spending. Mr. Clinton wants, among other things, to expand Medicare, expand Head Start, hire 100,000 new police officers, expand drug treatment, spend $80 billion on "infrastructure" and provide health insurance to Americans not covered by their employers. In another important borrowing from the politics of pork, Mr. Clinton refused to tell voters how he would pay for it all. The conservative thrust of much of Mr. Clinton's campaign doesn't mean that he's a Reaganite. His instincts are liberal. It's just that those instincts are easily overcome by a stronger one - to get elected. When the special interests begin assailing him in office and he has to pay for his spending, his true political persona will emerge. For now, it's time for liberals to gloat over a victory that's another indication of the fundamental shift in American politics wrought by a figure they revile - Ronald Reagan. Rich Loury is an associate editor at National Review. This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM