The President's Dilemma

...That was the deeper question involved in L'Affaire Jeffrey Add the Jeffrey controversy to the controversy over the Smithsonian exhibit of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and the one over high school history guidelines, as evidence of how hard it is to come to terms with history...

...Washington Notebook BY DANIEL SCHORR The Presidents Dilemma ROUGHLY 40 times in his record-long State of the Union address on January 24, President Clinton used the word "new" He spoke of "the New Covenant," "a new social compact," "a new global economy," "new requirements " But saying "new" didn't make it so His main themes were old, dating back at least to the announcement of his candidacy in October 1991—themes like "a middle-class bill of rights," "more efficient government," "more responsible citizens " Some themes bear repeating, that may help to explain why the speech went down better with the public, listening to the music, than with the pundits, studying the words Among the themes that appeared to resonate with the audience were teenage pregnancy as the bane of America, calling not simply for legislation but for a national crusade, the spirit of sharing and community that Clinton had witnessed at several recent natural disasters as a model for what could help cope with the country's unnatural disasters, religion as a constructive force in American life There was no significant new initiative, however Two years before the President had exuberantly launched a bold economic program, one year ago a bold health reform program Now, humbled by defeat m Congress and rejection at the polls, he had nothing bolder to propose than a minimum wage increase The burden of the speech was that he had done well for the country, with a promise to do better But, do better how...

...How could the President respond to the contradictory message that the voters seemed to want him to be both unbending and bending, standing his ground and yet getting out of the way of the new Republican Congress7 Maybe he should have delivered two speeches One of them might have gone like this "My fellow Americans, I know we lost the election last November—badly This was mainly because the Republicans spent millions of dollars on personal attacks, distortions and untruths They managed to blind the voters to the great accomplishments of our first two years I accept the fact of an election setback, I do not accept defeat "Those who expect me to throw in the towel and ride out the next two years to inevitable repudiation don't know their Bill Clinton There are things I will fight for—win, lose or draw "Among these things are the rescue of the long-suffering middle-class and a refusal to acquiesce in more handouts to the overpnvileged Among these things are reforming a welfare system that does not work and bringing teenage pregnancy under control, without consigning innocent children to warehouses Among these things is proudly asserting that the government—downsized, streamlined by our exertions—is not the enemy of the people, but the people's last resort "I stand before you today as the true conservative, dedicated to conserving the achievements of the past, to fending off the assaults of the radicals—they call themselves 'revolutionaries'—who would dismantle the structure of citizen protection I will fight to see that Americans do not starve, or lose the protection of laws and regulations guarding against the greedy despoilers, the polluters and the toxic waste poisoners "It is my conviction that voters will discover the profound mistake they made last November and put America back on course But, whether they do or not, here I stand " The other speech might have gone like this "My fellow Americans, to be a New Democrat is, in the first place, to be pragmatic That means cutting your losses and settling for what you can get In a democracy one must accept thejudgment of the voters Today I extend the hand of bipartisan cooperation to the Republicans, and I am ready to learn from my mistakes "Manifestly, people want lower taxes, and they shall have them in the best package that I can work out with the Republican leadership People are sick of welfare, and it will be dismantled—in a manner as compassionate as Congress will allow On health care, I am fully aware that I erred grievously by asking too much too soon I will support Republican health initiatives m Congress to achieve less and later "I recognize that what people desire from the government, more than anything else, is results So, although I may not like everything the Congress may enact, I will not contribute to gridlock by overuse of the veto I do hope, of course, that the Republican leadership will not try to repeal laws passed by the previous Congress—gun control, crime control and national service "Embedded deep in the American tradition is the idea, 'If you can't lick 'em, join 'em' Nobody ever said of Bill Clinton that he doesn't know which side is up To the extent feasible, you will find me ready to join 'em "God bless you all—old conservatives and new conservatives alike " Milestone Or Millstone...

...BY THE END of January, the Republicans had been fairly successful in delivering on their "Contract With America " Their spectacular first day of enacting procedural changes was followed by passage in the House of a proposed balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, while in the Senate a law was passed that would limit the imposition of unfunded mandates on the states Symbolically the budget amendment, long sought by conservatives, marked a historic milestone As I write, its fate in the Senate is uncertain So is what the amendment's impact would be if eventually ratification by the necessary three-quarters of the states were achieved Starting in the year 2002—except in times of full-scale war—the President would be required to submit a balanced budget No allowance was made for economic stringency, such as a deep recession, which would ordinarily call for deficit spending Nor was it clear how outlays and revenues would be equalized Raising taxes would require an absolute majority of both chambers (though not a two-fifths majority, as originally intended) Almost immediately, the amendment had the unintended consequence of stimulating the spending plans of legislators trying to get their last licks in before the doorclosed Subcommitteesmovedahead with plans to increase defense spending, including a $25 billion missile defense system the Pentagon opposed Meanwhile, the nation's governors (30 Republicans and 20 Democrats) arrived in town for a week and took a closer look at the drive to eliminate deficits on Capitol Hill They began to realize that this could dry up Fedeial money and therefore have the effect of unbalancing state budgets The governors also discussed welfare reform with both the Clinton Administration and the Congressional leadership Out of this came a new consciousness of the complexities of the present situation The Administration wants to make sure ending "welfare as we know it" will not be earned out m too harsh a manner The Congressional Republicans seem concerned that the states will not be harsh enough In lumping welfare and other social programs into block grants to the states, they will want to make sure their contract will be complied with That would mean an abrupt halt to welfare payments for unmarried teenage mothers It may also mean limiting assistance to legal but noncitizen immigrants Some of the governors wondered whether one result of block grants would be to hand them a new underfunded mandate and make them the executioners for Congress In addition, the Administration drove home the point that as with the balanced-budget amendment, block grants would impose so ngid a restraint as to leave the states unable to cope with a recession, when normally there is an increased need for social assistance To meet that contingency, the governors would prefer to see Federal funding retained Behind L'Affaire Jeffrey SPEAKER GINGRICH, quick on the draw and quick on the withdraw, fired his new House histonan, Chnstrna Jeffrey, as soon as he learned the New York Times was about to make her an issue of the sort he needed like a hole in the head His problem came down to a few words she had used m 1986, in evaluating for the Department of Education a grant application from the "Facing History and Ourselves" project of a Boston-based foundation It is designed to teach junior high school students about the Holocaust Jeffrey's recommendation against making the grant said the program lacked balance because it did not, for example, include the point of view of the Nazis or the Ku KluxKlan More was involved here, though, than the explosive few words "Facing History" urges students to learn from the Holocaust that they have a responsibility to deal as well with race, class, gender and other challenges to democracy The broader lesson of the Holocaust became enmeshed in an American ideological conflict Phyllis Schlafly, president of the conservative Eagle Forum, wrote in 1987 to William Knstol, then chief of staff to Secretary of Education William J Bennett, that the course would have "adverse, negative and offensive psychological effects" on the young She cited reactions wntten by some of those who had taken it, including one youngster who said, "Even in this seemingly perfect country we are cruel, we are hateful We are obsessed with ourselves " Schlafly said this was "psychological manipulation, induced behavioral change " Clearly, conservatives objected to the' and Ourselves" part of facing the history of hate Funding for the program was subsequently approved One of the foundation's more recent materials is a guide to the film Schindler's List It raises issues such as, "The common ground between slavery and the Holocaust and the pain of racial hatred " It says that "stereotyping can lead to prejudice and discnmination " Are these the right kind of values to teach young Amencans, or are they merely subversive Leftwing brainwashing...