McGovern, you may recall, predicted the moderate Clinton-Gore ticket would spew liberal appointees and policies postelection. Other formerly trendy liberals, like the writer Joan Didion, sneered that the radical-middle positions proposed by the Democratic Leadership Council and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute-and espoused by Bill Clinton during the campaign-were a smoke screen, a “marketing strategy” rather than a philosophy of governance. And so, more than a few of Washington’s professional liberals were chilled by the centrist breeze last week as the Clinton economic team emerged, the PPI published its substantial and rather creative transition road map, “Mandate for Change” (with an enthusiastic endorsement from the new president), and the DLC held a triumphant and egregious fund-raiser that was the hottest ticket in town. “Surprise and disappointment” was the reaction of Jeff Faux, president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute; Faux had been hoping for a more stimulating cast of characters-people who’d advocate a more: aggressive (and costly) public-works program. “Is it possible we’ve won this argument?” asked a hopeful Progressive Policy person.
No. Not quite. For one thing, it’s more than one argument. There are at least four separate battles between libs and mods-over economics, national security, social policy (health, education and welfare) and the legal-lifestyle nexus (secular humanist pursuits like gay rights, plus assorted Naderite regulatory manias). In other areas, the battlelines are cloudy: the DLC-dominated domestic-policy transition team is working on a political-reform package that liberals will love, including a proposal to eliminate the deductibility of corporate-lobbying expenses (which, ironically, might limit trough-wallows like last week’s DLC fund-raiser).
Indeed, the libs seemed to be holding their own on all fronts-except, perhaps, national security, where defense spending will be cut, but not nearly enough to suit the doves. Even last week’s economic-policy coup wasn’t entirely clear-cut. “When Lee Iacocca wants to start a new project at Chrysler, he has to clear it with the bankers,” said a Clinton economic adviser routinely described as liberal in the press. “A strong deficit-reduction package will have a similar effect for us. It’ll give us the credibility to move ahead with our more ambitious long-term stimulus program.” The liberals also should win big in the legal-lifestyle nexus, on what they like to call “social justice” issues. The next attorney general and many Clinton regulatory honchos are likely to be litigation liberals-that is, people who believe every injustice, real or perceived, is actionable. The fate of the social-policy issues-welfare reform, national service, tenant management of public housing, school choice (also, educational standards and testing)-remains uncertain. Traditional liberals don’t like them much. Clinton does, or so he says-but moderates worried last week when Donna Shalala, a high priestess of political correctness at the University of Wisconsin, was asked to run Health and Human Services.
But then, who really knows what Donna Shalala-also reputed to be a sharp, tough administrator-really thinks about welfare reform? And how much will it matter? Louis Sullivan-you remember him: the current HHS secretary-had so little access to George Bush that he was forced to mail his health-care ideas to the president’s Kennebunkport postoffice box. The fate of welfare reform-and, indeed, even deficit reduction-will be footnotes to the main story: Bill Clinton’s ability to lead, comfort and inspire. On that most important score, he seems off to a strong start. He conveys an ease and intelligence that has won friends in the salons of Washington, the halls of Congress and fast-food emporiums everywhere. His personal warmth has transcended some surprising borders: after interviewing two Somali clan leaders last week, Dan Rather was amazed to learn that both had followed the presidential campaign closely, were fascinated with Bill Clinton and had come-separately-to the same conclusion: “He seems comfortable with black people.”
