Scattershot Politics: Focusing the Debate Remains the Real Job of the President : Clinton: Many now compare this leader to Johnson, who shepherded much legislation through Congress. But Reagan might prove a better model.

When Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980, he swore that, if elected, he would cut income taxes. On taking office, barely a month went by before Reagan sent legislation to Congress doing precisely that. As Congress considered the matter, a daily drumbeat of messages from the White House detailed the inequities of the tax code.

Every speech, every photo op, every statement was on point: Were the hard-working middle class to be denied their rightful share of what their labors had wrought by a profligate federal government? Within a few months, Congress was brought to heel, and the tax cuts of 1981 were a reality.

Having spent the first six months of his presidency in relative inaction, Bill Clinton has come out of his shell in the last eight weeks, flitting from one substantive issue to the next in a dazzling display of activity. He has been heard on such varied subjects as reinventing government, campaign reform, Middle East peace, national service, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the situation in Bosnia, the North American Free Trade Agreement and, of course, health care. But it is difficult to tell which--if any--of these issues command his total dedication.

The root source of presidential power is derived from a President’s ability to focus the nation’s attention on his priorities. It is not odd that we tend to remember the central issue that a given President focused attention on as the item that summed up his presidency. Mention Franklin D. Roosevelt and we think about the New Deal; Dwight D. Eisenhower and we remember he ended the war in Korea; Lyndon B. Johnson, it’s the Great Society; Richard M. Nixon, going to China, and Ronald Reagan, cutting taxes.

In Washington, many people are comparing Clinton’s spate of legislation activity to Johnson’s presidency. I would beg to differ. Johnson had control of his party in Congress, and when he was riding high in popularity, nobody in Congress dared take exception to him.

In the two years after Johnson’s landslide election in 1964, the catalogue of legislation approved by the Congress was startling and came to be known as the Great Society. Each legislative part of Johnson’s program arrived in Congress with a specificity already determined by the Administration. No one in Congress was left with much to do other than vote up or down on it. Johnson, a dominant member of the ruling clique in Congress prior to being President, got everything he asked for with little interference from lobbyists or outside pressure groups.

It seems likely that Clinton wants to be remembered for giving the nation comprehensive health-care, but it is hard to say at this point that when Clinton’s name is mentioned in the future, we will think of health care.

While the President’s presentation on national television won him high marks, Clinton seems content to let health care make its own path through the congressional labyrinth. We are left to believe there is little that cannot be altered, and we have received little guidance from either the President or Hillary Rodham Clinton as to how it can be paid for.

A President makes his mark by stating precisely what his own opinion is on a given issue and, in effect, challenging the Congress and any self-appointed expert to come up with something better. Clinton, while showing that he is concerned about health care, has failed to let us know his precise thoughts on the matter. We are told that health care will be debated for the next year and, even if legislation is passed before next year’s congressional elections, the law is unlikely to take effect until after the 1996 presidential election. We therefore look forward to a veritable legislative marathon with little from the President to structure the debate or direct its outcome.

There is an extremely important piece of legislation set to come before the Congress this fall. But as as Clinton shifted public attention to health care, and away from NAFTA, he left the agreement with too few votes in Congress to pass and an inadequate explanation on his part as to why it must be approved. It seems almost as though he would be relieved if Congress voted down NAFTA, leaving him in a position of having supported it but, since it didn’t pass, not the target of union dismay. The country deserves more from the President on this historic piece of legislation.

Were Reagan still President, the White House would be issuing daily statements describing how passage of NAFTA would allow the United States immediate access to Mexico’s automobile markets, thus protecting U.S. jobs in the automotive industry; that it would give us stronger access to Mexican oil and gas reserves, thus insulating us from vagaries of Persian Gulf politics; that it would result in increased exports of corn and wheat, which cannot be grown economically on Mexico’s arable land. Groups of business leaders would be invited to the White House to attest to the increased jobs that would result, academics who believe in the virtues of free trade would be put on exhibition and ordinary citizens would come forward to cite how this agreement would lead to a better life. The White House focus would remain unchanged until victory in Congress was assured.

NAFTA deserves the President’s full attention now. Involved is the future health of the American economy, to say nothing of the welfare of millions of people who share the piece of land we all live on in this part of the world. If we miss this opportunity to deal with our neighbors, we miss the opportunity to create the largest free market in the world.

So, instead of focusing the country’s attention on “free” health care for everyone, the President would do better to embrace NAFTA enthusiastically and talk tough with the members of his own party in Congress who seem content to let it fail. In the unsettled U.S. economy, it is natural that fears exist as to whether NAFTA will immediately result in the loss of jobs to Mexico; only the President can allay these fears. It is natural that some Americans feel uncomfortable with accepting our neighbors as equal partners in the future of our continent; only the President can ease this discomfort.

I do not quarrel with those who put a high importance on deriving a better health-care system for the country. The current system is too costly, too cumbersome and insufficient to deal with the nation’s needs. But for an American, it is little solace to be fit if there is no work.

It is certainly a commendable goal to provide health care for every American, but I would remind the President that there is one thing worse than being ill and not having any medical coverage. It is to be ill and out of work.

“It’s the economy, stupid,” was the focus of the campaign that got Clinton elected, and NAFTA is a way to start the U.S. economy growing again. I only hope the President will recognize this.