NEWS ANALYSIS : Tug of War on Cabinet Foretells Larger Battle

In the behind-the-scenes struggles over President-elect Bill Clinton’s Cabinet appointments, the outlines of a larger battle over the direction of his entire Administration are beginning to take shape.

When Clinton exploded Monday at feminist leaders demanding more women in the Cabinet, he underscored the intensity of the private lobbying battles that have accompanied his appointments.

But many around Clinton are increasingly worried that the battle over personnel is only a proxy for the real fight awaiting him: preventing traditional Democratic constituency groups and party leaders in Congress from hijacking control of his policy agenda.

“All of this going on now,” says one senior aide, “is a metaphor for the larger problem ahead.”

That problem is reduced to a fundamental question for Clinton: Can he steer his party in a new, more middle-of-the-road direction, as he promised during the campaign? Or will he, as Republicans asserted, once in office yield to the institutional forces in the party--ranging from feminists and organized labor to environmentalists and congressional leaders--and move back toward the liberal approaches he has criticized?

The results of this tug-of-war will significantly influence Clinton’s ability to move his own programs and policies through Congress--and may determine the success of his efforts to reshape the Democratic Party’s image through the 1990s. Even the appearance of a Clinton presidency entangled in squabbles with party interest groups could be damaging.

“If it looks like these groups can get a foothold with pressure, that would hurt him,” says Brian Lunde, a former executive director of the Democratic National Committee. “He doesn’t want to have infiltrate his government the same problem Walter Mondale had in the 1984 campaign--where he is perceived by the public, fairly or unfairly, as a tool of the Democratic interest groups.”

For Clinton, the war must be fought on two fronts:

--He must find ways to line up the party constituency groups and their allies in Congress behind elements of his legislative agenda that depart from traditional liberal orthodoxy--such as imposing a two-year limit on receiving welfare and reducing employment in the federal government.

--He must also restrain the pent-up demand for new spending and regulatory initiatives among party interest groups that have been waiting 12 years to regain control of the executive branch.

“There are enormous demands on the government, and there are limited resources,” says Stanley B. Greenberg, Clinton’s pollster. “He is going to have to set priorities, and that is going to mean saying no to a lot of people.”

During his campaign for the White House, Clinton benefited from uncharacteristic acquiescence among the party constituency groups. Early in the primaries some industrial unions and civil rights leaders close to the Rev. Jesse Jackson painted Clinton as a closet Republican, but for most of the campaign, liberal interest groups muted their voices as Clinton steered toward the center.

That strategy held firm even when Clinton took positions that troubled many of the party’s constituencies. Since the election, however, these groups have not been nearly so reticent.

The most aggressive have been women’s groups, which have increased the heat on Clinton to name more women to top jobs.

In lashing out at feminist leaders Monday, some supporters believe, Clinton succeeded in sending a strong message that he intends to be the one hand on the steering wheel. Stuart E. Eizenstat, a Washington attorney who dealt with similar pressures as President Jimmy Carter’s domestic policy adviser, said Clinton’s outburst Monday constituted a “shot across the bow” to party groups similar to his condemnation last summer of rap singer Sister Souljah.

“The best way to deal with these groups is to let them know if that is the attitude they are going to take they are not going to get in the White House,” Eizenstat said. “And I think Clinton sent a pretty strong signal.”

But other close observers wonder if Clinton undercut his message by seeming to acknowledge later in the same press conference that a desire to include more women in the Cabinet may have been one reason he did not appoint Colorado Sen. Timothy E. Wirth as energy secretary. That job went to Hazel O’Leary, a Minnesota utility executive whose star seemed to ascend rapidly after feminist leaders began complaining publicly about the dearth of women appointments.

Balancing the Democratic coalition is not a problem unique to Clinton: It has been a challenge to each of the party’s presidents in this century. But the assignment may be particularly formidable for the Arkansas governor, who aimed his campaign appeal at moderates and independents, yet won the election largely on the vote of traditional Democrats.

Now he must constantly measure the expectations of his liberal supporters against his own hopes of attracting more of the moderate voters who resisted him in 1992.

That tension has been evident in his initial Cabinet appointments.

For the key inner-circle positions Clinton has appointed moderates who send a message of stability and prudence, such as Treasury Secretary-designate Lloyd Bentsen and Warren Christopher, his choice as secretary of state.

For the so-called outer-circle domestic policy appointments, however, Clinton has selected a number of Cabinet secretaries more closely identified with party activist groups, such as Donna Shalala, his nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, who has close ties to the liberal Children’s Defense Fund.

The pressures implicit in this eclectic mix of appointees may become increasingly explicit as Clinton sets his policy agenda.

The sharpest conflict is likely to come over the budget. In the campaign, Clinton promised $220 billion in new spending on domestic needs over his first term. But in the past few weeks, he has dropped broad hints that the deteriorating federal budget picture may force him to scale back those plans.

Other issues also threaten discord. His promise to conclude a free-trade agreement with Mexico potentially puts him on a collision path with unions, consumer groups and environmentalists.

Although such calculations could induce more uneasiness in the Democratic left, Clinton supporters remain confident that he can retain broad public support as long as he provides an overarching agenda--centered on economic issues.