Taxes No Longer Signal Political Kiss of Death : Politics: Bill Clinton seems to have pulled off something that mortally wounded George Bush. But does this sell the American people short?

The conventional wisdom in presidential politics is that tax increases are the political kiss of death. In 1984, Walter F. Mondale told the American people that a tax increase would be necessary to deal with the $70-billion budget deficit. He lost 49 states. In 1988, Bruce Babbitt told Americans that bitter medicine was necessary to address the failings of Reaganomics; he finished fifth in Iowa. Paul E. Tsongas was the bitter-medicine candidate in 1992, refusing to buy into Bill Clinton’s middle-class tax cut; he got creamed on Super Tuesday. As a candidate the first time around, George Bush pledged to never raise taxes; he won. Four years later, after breaking his promise as part of a budget agreement intended to control the growth of the deficit, his apologies could not save his presidency.

If this axiom held, Clinton’s economic program should be dead on arrival, and the President should be suffering for having proposed it. But the plan isn’t dead, and Clinton is thriving. Every poll shows a majority of Americans supporting him, even though he’s asking most of them, in no uncertain terms, to pay higher taxes to bring down the deficit.

To be sure, the Clinton economic program is far from being enacted. Defections among Senate Democrats may force the President to negotiate with Republicans to win a majority in that body. Spending cuts remain a sensitive question: Many willing to pay more also want to see the government spend less. Ultimately, the President may have to take as many risks on the spending side as he has on the revenue side if his program is to succeed. Even so, as of now, the President has fared better in selling his program than most professional observers thought possible. He is turning the lessons of history on their head and forcing the pundits to come up with a new explanation for his unconventional success.

The emerging view among political insiders is that the American people are supporting the President because he has waged such an effective campaign for his program. Certainly, that’s part of it. The President and his team deserve a great deal of credit for the positive poll results. After a rocky start dominated by gays in the military and failed attorney-general nominations, the President has gone on the offensive, gotten out of the White House and gotten back to his game.

As a new President, Clinton begins with the advantage that the public is inclined to give him a chance. But that is hardly a guarantee of success, as Jimmy Carter discovered when his energy plan went nowhere. Clinton, by contrast, has built on the foundation of goodwill by going directly to the people.

The President has been selling his economic package in just the same way he sold himself so effectively last fall. As important as the visits with congressmen and the strong State of the Union have been, the campaign events inside and outside the Capitol, the multicity town meeting, the question-and-answer session with children. The Washington press corps may chafe because he’s taking questions from local television hosts and selected average citizens instead of them, but it’s working.

The obvious comparison is with Ronald Reagan, who sold his economic program in 1981 to America first and the Congress second. But Reagan’s position was stronger, his mandate clearer and his package far sweeter than Clinton’s--the comparison only highlights the magnitude of Clinton’s accomplishment to date. Reagan, after all, won in a landslide; a majority of Americans may have wanted change in 1992, but they didn’t vote for Clinton. Reagan’s program could be seen as the fulfillment of his campaign pledges; Clinton’s, at least as far as taxes go, is nothing less than a repudiation of his. Perhaps most significant, Reagan in his first months in office was selling candy to the middle class: pay less taxes and get a stronger defense to boot. Clinton, by comparison, is out there successfully selling cod liver oil, persuading Americans they must pay more and expect less.

But that is only half the story; the other half is that the people are proving themselves a whole lot smarter than most politicians give them credit for. As skillful as Clinton has been as the salesman President, his success says as much about America as it does about him.

Without ever saying so, conventional political wisdom doesn’t have much respect for the intelligence of the American people. Implicit in the view that taxes are the kiss of death is a judgment that most Americans are selfish, shortsighted and easily manipulated. The emerging accepted wisdom, focusing almost exclusively on the skills of the President, suggests that there’s almost nothing a good salesman can’t sell America.

In fact, it is because the people cannot be so easily manipulated that the Republicans, led by Reagan himself, have failed to derail Clinton simply by pointing out that his package includes higher taxes. It is because Americans are not selfish and shortsighted that they are willing to pay more, if sacrifice is apportioned fairly.

Reagan may still be asking what was wrong with the ‘80s, but he is in a minority. When people said they wanted change in November, they meant it. After the hard times suffered in so many regions of the country, there seems to be real recognition that change doesn’t come cheap, and the piper must be paid. In 1984, when Mondale campaigned for higher taxes, the deficit was less than one-third of what it is today, and the economy was booming. In 1993, the economy is growing more slowly, the future looks bleaker.

The situation is worse, and the people know it. They’re looking for answers, and they’re a lot more honest with themselves than most politicians have been with them. That’s why so many watched Ross Perot and his flip charts, boring though it may have been in conventional television terms. It is why record numbers of Americans have told Times-Mirror pollsters that they are following the current economic debate “very closely.” It is why, ultimately, the inclusion of new taxes does not doom the Clinton program.

Americans are going to insist that any plan be fair. The President has recognized that imperative on the taxing side. His “tax the rich even more” rhetoric may have been a bit strident, and his euphemisms about Social Security taxes a bit disingenuous, but by the standards of politics, he has been straightforward about the fact that everyone will be “contributing” more.

But fairness must also extend to the balance between taxing and spending. That is what is so puzzling, and ultimately dangerous, about the game now being played by the President and Congress on spending. The President’s team has been less than straightforward about spending cuts, suggesting one day that they will consider additional cuts, a few days later that they will only react and not propose; challenging Republicans to come up with specifics and then, last week, telling them it is the congressional Democrats, not the Administration, who are blocking deeper cuts. It’s business-as-usual politics, in a year when the people, to their credit, are not playing by the usual rules.

If the President is trying to get the Republicans to stick their necks out for unpopular cuts, and then to go along, he risks being too clever by half--and making the same mistake Bush did when he tried to blame Democrats for forcing him into raising taxes. It didn’t work then, because people expect Presidents to lead, and hold them responsible, for good or ill. It won’t work now--because more than ever, Americans are looking for leadership not gamesmanship.