How ‘Slick Willie’ Is Fast Becoming Nebulous Bill

WASHINGTON — So far, Bill Clinton has been very lucky. Potential rivals with greater support decided early not to enter the presidential race. His character flaws might have received more serious consideration from voters had they been disclosed today rather than in the early stages of the primaries. And George Bush has chosen to remain immobile, defending a record that most Americans, according to the polls, find unsatisfactory. Under the circumstances, Clinton has been content to sit back and watch his ratings rise, secure in the belief that as long as he promises “change,” victory will be his.

But is there any reason to believe that a Clinton presidency would result in better leadership or hold the promise of anything but business-as-usual in Washington? Clinton has promised to spend more money on the environment, education, veterans’ benefits, the poor and the homeless. But when asked how he would pay for his promises, with the federal budget woefully out of balance, he vaguely responds that higher taxes on the top 2% of America’s taxpayers would do the job. No one believes this revenue would come anywhere near meeting the bills. Yet, Clinton is allowed to drop the conversation with the simple pledge to tax the rich. Hardly a profile of courage.

On foreign policy, the self-admitted novice has been even less forthcoming. Aside from deftly goading Bush over the President’s handling of Yugoslavia, Clinton has managed to reach the last eight weeks of the campaign without ever discussing his views on the issue. With the Cold War over, the foreign-policy decisions made by the next President will have important consequences for the future international role of the United States. Yet, Clinton tells us nothing.

The other day, Clinton received the endorsement of the AFL-CIO. Hardly a surprise. But the cynical announcement that the union would not raise its reservations about the U.S.-Mexico free-trade treaty until after the election in November constitutes another tactical victory for “Slick Willie.” It will now be easier for Clinton to avoid taking a position on the treaty. American voters will thus have to go to the polls wondering about how this important piece of legislation will play in a Clinton Administration.

Some think the debates will force Clinton to be more precise. Don’t bet on it. In light of past presidential debates, a challenger leading in the polls need only prove himself unfrightening to the voters. This is accomplished by memorizing “safe” answers to anticipated questions.

It is remarkable how similar Clinton and Bush are. Four years ago, Bush, in laying out his plans for a “kinder and gentler” presidency, promised to spend more money on the environment and education. He, like Clinton this year, swore that his administration would create millions of new jobs.

Both gentlemen coveted the presidency from an early age. Clinton evidently worried, while in college, that his failure to serve in the military might damage his political prospects. Bush has spent the majority of his adult life pursuing ever higher office. There is nothing wrong with ambition as long as it united with good purpose. When merely self-aggrandizement, it serves no larger purpose.

Clinton has said and done nothing to make me believe that his interest in being President has anything to do with making the country stronger or better. In his hands, the country will not likely be more prosperous, will not likely have a clear picture of where it is going.

If Clinton’s ratings remain stable for another month, we will find ourselves on the verge of electing a man as President about whom less is known than any nominee since Warren G. Harding. As frustrated as I am with Bush, I cannot join those who recommend Clinton. To elect someone who thinks it’s smart to avoid taking positions would be irresponsible. At least, Bush has the experience of having been President and, in this case, it is possible that the evil we know is better than the one we do not.