PERSPECTIVE ON THE PRESIDENCY : Build a Decent, Prosperous Society : George Bush’s vision is to win at all costs; in stark contrast, Bill Clinton has a humane vision of the nation’s future.

Historians looking back from the next century will almost certainly view the 1992 presidential election as a turning point for the United States.

At stake in this electoral contest is nothing less than our country’s economic future. The outcome will greatly affect living standards of most Americans and the future prospects for our children.

Having gone to a university in the 1960s with many friends whose parents were liberal Republicans who supported civil rights, a cleaner environment, women’s rights and social reform, I find it disheartening that the President, their contemporary, is offering the American people such cynical, win-at-all costs politics of division and negativism. George Bush denies responsibility for his own record, and tries to shift the blame for our country’s woes to Congress, to the press, women’s groups, gays, even to fictional Hollywood characters. But President Bush cannot escape economic reality. For most Americans, the answer to Ronald Reagan’s famous question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” is a thundering “No!”

Under the Bush Administration, the country has run up the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. The national debt has doubled. The budget deficit is up 150%. More than a million Americans have been unemployed for more than six months--an increase of 133%. There has been a sharp increase in the number of Americans lacking health insurance, children living in poverty and families on welfare. Hourly earnings for blue-collar workers have declined, while the number of millionaires has increased 80% and the annual income of the wealthiest 5% has shot up. Violent crimes have jumped 21%, even with more Americans in prison and on death row. Public and private investment is at a lower level than that of our major competitors, the Germans and the Japanese.

American society has become more unequal, less safe and secure and more contentious. Under George Bush, the country has, sadly, become a more mean-spirited place, not a kinder, gentler nation. He has been a President without a domestic agenda, out of touch with the pain and problems that most Americans face in their daily lives.

In contrast, Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary have spent the past 12 years trying to uplift the people of a poor state. In Arkansas, Clinton has fought against entrenched interests to win improvements in education, reform the welfare system to put people to work and implement a state economic development strategy that has created manufacturing jobs at 10 times the national average rate. It is not surprising that Clinton was voted the nation’s outstanding executive by his fellow governors, nor that John Sununu, before he joined the Bush Administration, told the Arkansas Gazette that Bill Clinton’s greatest asset is his “style and capacity to deal with his colleagues to get results.”

Along with his abysmal record of the past four years, George Bush still has no vision for the future. Having sold his soul to his party’s radical right, he seconded their vision at the Republican convention--the vision of a nation divided by intolerance and hostility. The President refused to distance himself from speakers who angrily demeaned whole categories of Americans, nor would he rein in his campaign’s hit men and women when they attacked the private lives of both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The absence of a domestic agenda was most apparent in the tax and spending cuts that the President called for at the convention. If enacted, this supply-side fantasy revisited would be a slashing attack on the middle class. The check-off system he proposed, in which taxpayers could earmark their payments to cut the deficit, which would trigger an equal cut in spending, is really a plan for one dollar, one vote, not one person, one vote, for it would give the wealthy a device to force cuts in government programs, such as veterans’ benefits, college loans, Social Security and Medicare. This is because President Bush would have to make a trillion dollars in cuts to meet his announced plan, and without touching defense items, which Bush has said have been cut enough.

Bush’s cynical plan ignores the need to invest in America’s future, so that the country can compete and win in the 21st Century. In stark contrast, Bill Clinton has a humane vision of the future. The Democratic Convention was not dominated by hate and anger. Instead, Clinton and Al Gore spoke about their personal values and how these have been wedded to a commitment to work with the American people to rebuild the economy, to reinvigorate government to be more effective and efficient, to protect American families and to promote economic growth with both equity and environmental sanity.

Clinton has put forward a detailed economic strategy paper, “Putting People First,” that offers a plan for investment in people through programs of lifetime learning and work, not welfare, and investment in the foundations of our economy--schools, roads, transit and civilian research and development. The plan has been endorsed by six Nobel laureate economists, as well as by leading business executives, labor and community leaders and editorial writers.

Equally important is the way Clinton would govern as President. He has called for a “new covenant” between the American people, our government and our local communities, where people take responsibility not only for their own lives, but also for working together as Team America to build a decent and prosperous society.

In the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots, there was pressure for Clinton to call for a massive, top-down Marshall Plan for the cities--but he felt that was the wrong approach. Rebuilding the inner cities must be a democratic, grass-roots process, even while some resources are provided by the federal government. Community revitalization only works as a partnership with local business, government and community groups participating fully. Clinton made clear his commitment to such a partnership and participatory approach by meeting for two hours with members of neighborhood-based organizations. He listened to their concerns and proposals and discussed how various federal initiatives might be crafted to work in concert with grass-roots efforts. It was an example of what will be a trademark of a Clinton Administration--a People-First President.

In similar fashion, a President Clinton would work with defense workers and communities affected by the end of the Cold War to see that there was adequate retraining and serious planning for economic conversion. He would work with business and labor to tear down the Berlin War between workers and management to forge new, cooperative work relationships--to practice teamwork economics--so that American companies can be more productive and competitive in the new world economy. And Bill Clinton would be a truly compassionate President, one who understands that Americans need a family-leave policy and that women must not be denied the right of choice.

As commander in chief, Bill Clinton would defend the security interests of the United States and stand up for democracy abroad. He has spelled out his views on foreign policy and defense issues, but what is most important, he understands that America’s ability to lead in the world rests on the strength of our society at home. More than ever in the post-Cold War era, international security and economic security are closely linked. Americans cannot be weak at home and remain strong abroad.

It is unfortunate that George Bush, who prides himself on his foreign-policy experience, does not understand this basic tenet. Four years ago, Bush had a chance to free himself from the right-wing forces that have captured the Republican Party. He could have rebuilt a progressive Republicanism, and in the aftermath of Desert Storm, he could have used his standing in the polls to propose and fight for a domestic reform agenda--but he did not. He sat in the Oval Office, but he did not lead the nation.

Clinton is ready to lead. It’s time for a change, to build a new American future.

COMING SOON: The case for George Bush, by former White House Chief of Staff John Sununu.