
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, August 19, 1993                   TAG: 9401120001
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A14   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

DEFINING TERMS

Man' date: the wishes of constituents expressed to a representative, legislature, etc., as through an election and regarded as an order. - Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition.

``THE MARGIN was close,'' said Bill Clinton after Congress barely passed his deficit-reduction plan, ``but the mandate is clear.''

At least he got the first part right.

But when the legislative centerpiece of the first year of your administration is carried by just a single vote in the House or Representatives, and then is passed by the Senate only on the strength of Vice President Al Gore's tie-breaker in favor, it's hard to detect a mandate, let alone a ``clear'' one.

Granted, big majorities do not alone a mandate make. In 1988, George Bush won the presidency by a fairly wide margin - but to what end? His campaign themes had been so vague that the size of his victory said little about the ``wishes of constituents,'' other than the obvious fact they preferred Bush to his Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis.

Clinton, on the other hand, has if anything suffered from the opposite problem, from a superfluity of specificity. As a certified policy wonk, he has or has had plans, proposals and recommendations on most subjects under the sun, and study commissions for the rest. His mandate problem hasn't been the content part; it's been the support part.

Last November, in the election, he won the presidency with a plurality of just 43 percent. Today, public-opinion polls show him not much better off. In Congress, the president's latest struggle isn't apt to be the last.

The two elements of a mandate, public support and concrete content, are interconnected. Eventually, a deficiency in either will create a deficiency in the other. In Bush's case, lack of content led in time to loss of public support. In Clinton's case, lack of public support has forced him to compromise, then compromise again on policy content.

Declaring from above the existence of a clear mandate, as Clinton in effect sought to do, doesn't fit the dictionary definition very well. But in the absence of a clear mandate from below, perhaps that was his only option.

by CNB