Pressing THE Buttons : Clinton proves too vulnerable to pressure from special interests

We have now had two months to observe President-elect Bill Clinton and how he approaches the process of governing. While it may seem unfair to judge a man before he has even assumed the office, the selection of a Cabinet is perhaps more revealing about how a man thinks and how he will approach important decisions than anything he may do in his first six months in office. Besides, first impressions, while not always accurate, are the evidence others use in determining how to deal with him.

Clinton deserves high marks on one score: The Cabinet does, in most senses, keep his campaign pledge to increase the representation of blacks, Latinos and women in the highest councils of government. At the same time, the appointment of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas as secretary of the Treasury, as well as the other appointments made in the area of economics, have, for the moment, assuaged Wall Street’s worst fears. The foreign-policy Establishment is also breathing easier now that Warren Christopher and W. Anthony Lake, two members of that Establishment, have been installed as caretakers of the nation’s foreign policy.

But as is so often the case in Washington, the “insiders,” the lobbyists, the congressional staff people, the bureaucrats, the lawyers and the public-relations people, are more interested in how the result was achieved rather than what it is. To them, the lesson of the Cabinet selection process has been clear: This guy can be pushed around; he can be pressured; he will respond to public criticism. He can be had. Underlying these observations, there is the growing assumption that Clinton has no strong beliefs of his own about how to lead the country.

The evidence these surmises are built on comes from the perception that had it not been for the pressure of various special-interest groups, we quite probably would have in the Cabinet Secretary of Defense Sam Nunn, Secretary of the Interior (or Energy) Tim Wirth and Secretary of Transportation William Daley. None of these gentlemen would have had any trouble being confirmed and all possessed the necessary qualifications. Their sin seems to have been that they didn’t pass muster with certain special-interest groups or, as was the case with Daley, it was deemed necessary to fill the post with a minority.

Seemingly, Rep. Dan Rosenkowski (D-Ill.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and Daley’s brother, Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago, had been assured that he would be named as secretary of Transportation. But at the 11th hour, these assurances were violated because of the need to find a position for one more Latino.

The problem here has nothing to do with the person ultimately named to the post but rather in breaking your promises. In big-time politics you make a double mistake when you don’t keep promises: Those who see this become encouraged in the belief that by exerting enough pressure, any cause can be won, and those who feel disadvantaged by your failure to honor a commitment vow to take retribution. Rostenkowski, Mayor Daley and Nunn are not people you want to have looking for an opportunity to even the score if you are a Democratic President.

For, when you over-promise, you get in trouble. A “major” Cabinet positions--one of the “big four” of Defense, State, attorney general and Treasury--was promised for a woman and it quickly became obvious that the position of attorney general was to be the designated slot. Many names were mentioned, some proved uninterested, others were discarded and, under considerable pressure from the women’s movement to keep his word, Clinton finally appointed Zoe Baird. I have nothing against Baird, but if one were to forget that she is a woman, it would not be obvious just what qualifications she holds to administer the largest law firm in the world or act as the President’s personal legal adviser. One wonders whether the President won’t seek his legal advice from someone he feels closer to and whether the women’s movement won’t be retarded rather than advanced by this appointment.

Clinton’s economic summit in Little Rock also provided evidence of his approach to governing. While it looks democratic to see a President-elect asking advice from some of the nation’s businessmen and economic thinkers, Clinton should be wary of indicating that he is willing to share his power with those who would seek to advise him. It may have been refreshing, in the wake of George Bush, to see a President who is willing to listen and is cognizant about the country’s problems. But while Bush’s aloofness was exasperating, his bigger problem was that, on domestic problems, he seemingly had no compass of his own. So far, Clinton appears just as rudderless.

Richard M. Nixon once sagely observed to me that a President should be careful about whom he asks for advice, since he may be compelled to take some of it. Implicit in this was his strong belief that a President must not be seen sharing his power, or he can expect that everyone will want a piece.

The President cannot rule by committee, he cannot hide behind the advice of others and, once in office, it is action that is required, not reflection. It seems doubtful that Clinton understands this.

By far the greatest President was Abraham Lincoln. By his life and his strength of character, Lincoln proved that American-style democracy could be trusted--that perhaps a superior form of wisdom could be acquired from a life of poverty and no formal education rather than from privilege; that perhaps an ordinary citizen could more easily see the essence of what America should be rather than those who had a vested interest in keeping things as they were.

The three great documents of U.S. history are the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation converted the Civil War from one to save the Union into a struggle to honor the rights of even the most disadvantaged of our people. It was not popular in many quarters and had Lincoln polled his Cabinet, a majority would not have supported it. He did it on his own, as he did so many things.

On one occasion, Lincoln was asked to explain a controversial decision and responded, “Well, we took a vote in the Cabinet and it was eight to one--but I was the one.” If Clinton is to correct some of the perceptions now being nurtured about him in Washington, he should, as quickly as possible, show us that he is “the one.”