Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, April 29, 1993 TAG: 9304290499
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
On the other hand, 100 days is a nice round number. And Bill Clinton himself promised, during the campaign, "an explosive 100-day action period."
More to the point, it's worth commenting at this stage if only to question the notion - promulgated by Republican leaders but also others - that this administration is proving to be an unmitigated disaster. "The worst 100 days since Warren G. Harding, by any reasonable standard," says political scientist Everett Carll Ladd.
Give us a break. Granted, Clinton has been no FDR. But neither do current political or economic circumstances remotely resemble those of Roosevelt's first 100 days.
Clinton hasn't been a Ronald Reagan, either. But no one should regret that - considering the course on which Reagan set the country during his "successful" first 100 days.
Clinton's start has produced disappointments. Surely no one is thrilled. Chastened by Republicans' defeat of his jobs bill and polls showing his public support is down, Clinton himself concedes he's not been able to do all he hoped in the first 100 days.
But let's be fair. This president is being criticized - sometimes from the same quarters - for trying to do too much, and for not trying to do enough.
Getting through Congress in record time his budget resolution - a blueprint for a fundamental shift in national economic policy - is no small achievement, though the hard work of enacting the plan remains.
And if Clinton has shown anything, it's a knack for bouncing back. He's proved before that he's smart enough to learn from mistakes.
It would be well if Clinton has learned, in his first 100 days, not to underestimate Americans' desire for change. Activist though he is - overturning old policies by executive fiat, serving up reform packages by the day - he has on several fronts been too timid in fighting for his beliefs. His tendency to back off, to change course when opposition makes the road ahead bumpy, has not served him well.
It would be well, too, if Clinton has learned he needs to return to the "New Democrat" themes, outlined during his campaign, which promise more effective government and more emphasis on citizens' civic responsibilities. Initiatives based on such themes are more likely to attract bipartisan support.
Meanwhile, it would be nice (though surprising) if Republican lawmakers were to stop chortling so much that Clinton is not getting rave reviews at the 100-day mark. He has indeed broken campaign promises and made mistakes, some of them whoppers.
But GOP talk of a failed presidency - in hopes that public sentiment and Democratic lawmakers will turn against Clinton, thereby assuring a failed presidency - is as cynical as it is premature.
Haven't Americans seen enough failed presidencies? Didn't they elect Clinton because they want action and change, not more of the same old governmental malaise and gridlock? Even if they don't agree with everything he's done so far, don't Americans want the president to succeed?
Clinton has been distracted from domestic initiatives, as all presidents are, by foreign affairs. But he has taken on ambitious tasks. His predecessors certainly lacked the courage, say, to try to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on energy and social security benefits; to defend the rights of gays in the military and women seeking abortions; to tackle health-care reform.
If he succeeds with his programs, Clinton likely will be judged wildly successful. (Time, in other words, will tell.) In his 1961 inaugural address, John Kennedy said of his plans: "All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days. But let us begin."
by CNB