Clinton Agenda Sticks Closely to Middle Ground

From the start of the campaign that has now brought him within hours of the Democratic presidential nomination, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton has insisted he wants to steer a new course beyond “the brain-dead politics in both parties.”

Over the last year, defining that new direction has been both a political priority and a personal passion for Clinton. A self-confessed policy junkie who devours reports about welfare reform the way most men consume baseball box scores, Clinton has proposed literally dozens of new programs on a range of issues.

Now, as he moves onto the open stage of the general election campaign, Clinton is selling his agenda as a “third way” between traditional liberalism and conservatism. “It’s time to move beyond the old ideas of something for nothing on the one hand, and every person for himself on the other,” Clinton declared last week.

With voters’ doubts about his character and trustworthiness still lingering, Clinton has largely pinned his hopes on convincing Americans that he has synthesized a new approach that can break the deadlock in Washington, revive the economy and address festering social problems. At the center of this argument is his vast edifice of policy proposals--a sprawling construction linked by several basic philosophical principles.

In economic policy, his agenda’s organizing principle is the belief that the key to long-term growth and improved productivity is increased public and private investment in research, education, training and infrastructure.

Thus, he urges increased government spending on primary and secondary education, universal access to government loans for college, requirements that all companies increase their investment in worker training, the creation of a government agency to fund research into cutting-edge civilian technologies, and the establishment of a Rebuild America Fund that would spend $80 billion in the next four years to rebuild roads and bridges, construct sophisticated information networks and develop new approaches to pollution control and energy conservation.

To pay for these ideas, Clinton has proposed raising $58.3 billion in additional corporate taxes over the next four years--primarily by stiffening enforcement against foreign companies operating in the United States--and another $91.7 billion in personal taxes by increasing the top tax rate on upper-income earners, imposing a millionaires’ surtax and toughening the minimum tax.

In social policy, the cornerstone of Clinton’s thought stresses “reciprocal responsibility” between government and individuals.

To a degree unusual for a Democrat, Clinton insists that government alone cannot solve the nation’s problems without demanding more from its citizens. He says government must forge a “new covenant”--one that provides more opportunity but also demands more responsibility from all elements of society.

“It is a new moral conception of what government is all about,” said William A. Galston, a University of Maryland public policy professor who advises Clinton. “Democrats have been seen too often as the party of rights, not responsibilities, the party of license, not liberty, and Clinton has turned a very important corner.”

Two other themes stretch between the pillars of investment and reciprocal responsibility to link Clinton’s domestic agenda. One is his belief that Democrats must champion the idea of “reinventing government”--reforming it in ways that reduce bureaucracy and give more responsibility for social problems to local communities.

The second is the argument that social programs work best when they offer universal benefits without regard to race or income. Most of Clinton’s core ideas are designed to be as attractive to the middle class as to the poor.

In foreign policy, Clinton has enunciated what might be called a cautious internationalism. A backer of the use of force in the Persian Gulf War, he argues that the United States must maintain an active international role focused on promoting democracy and free markets. But he insists that the United States must shift more of its resources to problems at home and ask its allies to shoulder more of the load.

Likewise, in trade policy, Clinton condemns protectionism. But he also warns of retaliation against Japan and other competitors he accuses of blocking U.S. imports.

This agenda has drawn fire from the left and the right. Some liberals--particularly allies of the Rev. Jesse Jackson--view Clinton’s stress on personal responsibility as a veiled attempt to stoke white racial hostilities. Meanwhile, former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. and like-minded critics, such as consumer advocate Ralph Nader, maintain that Clinton’s agenda fails to aggressively challenge society’s inequities.

Operatives for President Bush’s campaign are busy trying to make the opposite case: that Clinton’s call for a large tax increase, as well as his support for gay rights and legalized abortion, stamp him as a traditional liberal.

But even some leading conservatives consider it a stretch to hang the “L word” on a candidate who supports the death penalty, a presidential line-item veto and mandatory work for welfare recipients.

Two other criticisms of Clinton’s agenda seem more telling. One is the view that his recently released economic recovery plan failed to seriously address the federal budget deficit. Many economists flunked the plan for not offering bolder ideas to raise revenues or curtail spending.

The other lingering question is the depth of Clinton’s commitment to ideas that grate on traditional Democratic constituencies. He won the nomination without renouncing any of his basic proposals, but he did mute them at critical moments--such as during the New York primary campaign--to avoid alienating key supporters.