It’s All About Clinton

President Bill Clinton’s name hasn’t come up much, but if there is one force driving this year’s presidential campaign, it’s Clintonism.

Clintonism defines the new center in American politics. “We restored the vital center, replacing outmoded ideologies with a new vision anchored in basic, enduring values,” the president said in his seventh and final State of the Union speech on Thursday night.

What’s the cardinal principle of Clintonism? Follow the voters. Something Clinton has done skillfully from his first address to the American people in 1993 (“I believe government must do more”) to his 1996 State of the Union speech delivered before the first Republican Congress in 40 years (“The era of big government is over”).

His speech Thursday was typical--a mish-mosh of small initiatives, mostly liberal, some conservative, all resoundingly popular. The country’s not in the mood for bold new agendas when, as the president said, “The state of our union is the strongest it has ever been.”

Want to hear pure Clintonism? Look at the signals in this key sentence from Clinton’s speech: “We must make these investments [that’s Clintonian for spending, a liberal idea] and tax cuts [conservative] in the context of a balanced budget [conservative] that strengthens and extends the life of Social Security and Medicare [liberal] and pays down the national debt [conservative].” Every one of those ideas, resoundingly popular.

A psychologist would point to the fact that Clinton grew up as the son of an alcoholic stepfather in a dysfunctional family. He was the family peacemaker, famously stepping in to protect his mother from physical abuse. Clinton still sees himself as the reconciler of differences who craves to be loved by all sides.

The most personal moment in the speech came when the president pointed out to Republicans and Democrats in the chamber that “we are all, regardless of race, genetically 99.9% the same.” From which he concluded, “The most important fact of life is our common humanity.”

Clinton reminded viewers, “Eight years ago, it was not so clear to most Americans there would be much to celebrate in the year 2000. Then, our nation was gripped by economic distress, social decline, political gridlock.” Hmm . . . now who was president eight years ago? Man by the name of George Bush.

Could this be a classic case of aggression against the father? After all, what is the 2000 election for Clinton but a classic war of succession between “my son” (Vice President Al Gore) and “his son” (Texas Gov. George W. Bush)? As his legacy for Gore, Clinton pointed out that “next month, America will achieve the longest period of economic growth in our entire history.” Hear that? Mine’s longer than his. Even longer than Ronald Reagan’s.

At one point, Clinton made an embarrassing Freudian slip when he referred to the vice president’s initiative to “make our communities more liberal.” He meant “livable.” As members of Congress laughed knowingly, the president corrected himself. Then he made the same mistake a second time. As Sigmund Freud said, “There are no mistakes.”

Clinton has an uncanny instinct for figuring out where the voters are, and then doing whatever he can to please them. Where the voters are right now is moderately conservative on economic issues and moderately liberal on social issues. So the president has pulled the Democratic Party to the center on economic issues--”Let this be the year we end welfare as we know it,” he said in his 1995 State of the Union--while keeping the liberal faith on social issues. Clinton has boldly, and uncharacteristically, defied public opinion and vetoed the ban on partial-birth abortions.

Clintonism is at the heart of the debate in this year’s Democratic campaign. Gore, of course, embraces Clintonism. In last week’s New Hampshire debate, Gore called welfare reform “an important achievement” and noted, “We have moved 7 million people from welfare to work, cutting the rolls in half.”

Former Sen. Bill Bradley’s whole campaign is a challenge to the ascendancy of Clintonism in the Democratic Party. Bradley has accused Gore and Clinton of being in “a Washington bunker,” so preoccupied with political survival that they have failed to pursue a bold agenda. “The Democratic Party shouldn’t be in a Washington bunker with you,” he told Gore in a debate earlier this month. “The Democratic Party should be thinking big things.”

Clinton is obviously aware of the murderous Cain-and-Abel rivalry between the Democratic sons. The president took on Bradley in his State of the Union speech when he said, “America again has the confidence to dream big dreams. . . . Let us set great goals for our nation.”

Want to see how Clintonism defines the Democratic contest? In last Monday’s Iowa caucuses, Democrats were divided over how they felt about Clinton “as a person.” Those with a favorable opinion of Clinton voted 4-1 for Gore. Among those with an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, Bradley and Gore were tied. The only Democrats Bradley carried by a solid margin were those who disapproved of the way Clinton is handling his job. Only one Democrat in eight felt that way.

Bradley gets votes from anti-Clinton Democrats--and New Hampshire is filled with them. But there just aren’t enough of them overall to defeat Gore. Even self-described liberal Democrats in Iowa voted almost 2-1 for Gore.

Gore has learned well from the father. He steals Bradley’s ideas. Bradley’s for campaign-finance reform? Gore claims he, too, is for campaign-finance reform--only he was for it first. Bradley’s for universal health insurance? Gore claims he, too, wants universal health insurance--but he wants to do it “step by step.” Bradley claims his health plan shows he’s got big ideas? Gore claims he’s got a “comprehensive education-reform plan to turn around every failing school, a proposal Sen. Bradley doesn’t have.” Mine’s bigger than his.

Clintonism also defines the debate in the GOP campaign, though this idea would horrify Republicans. “Tonight marks the beginning of the end of the Clinton era!” Bush said Monday night, to wild applause, as he claimed victory in Iowa.

But what Bush is trying to do is pull the GOP to the center on social issues. When asked in the debate last week what kind of constitutional amendment he would write on abortion, Bush said, “It would be that every child, born and unborn, be protected by law.” Then he added, “Our party must not abandon its pro-life position, but we must welcome people of different positions.” That’s called trying to have it both ways. A perfectly Clintonian response.

At the same time, Bush is keeping the conservative faith on economic issues. “I will support tax cuts, so help me God,” Bush pledged earlier this month. The big question hanging over the Republican campaign is whether conservatives will buy into Bush the way liberals bought into Clinton. They did in Iowa last week. Self-described GOP conservatives voted 40% for Bush, 30% for Steve Forbes, 15% for Alan L. Keyes and 10% for Gary L. Bauer.

True, if you add the Forbes, Keyes and Bauer votes together, you get a majority of conservatives voting against Bush. But you can’t add them together. Anti-Bush conservatives voted for three different candidates. Forbes hopes to add them together in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary to make himself the conservative alternative to Bush. But, from all indications, that’s not likely to happen. Especially if the GOP race is seen as a two-man contest between Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain. Watch conservatives jump on the Bush bandwagon to protect the party from McCain.

After seven years of Clinton, conservatives are feeling beaten down. And desperate to win back the White House. Just the way liberals felt in 1992, when they bought into Clinton.