Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, January 26, 1995 TAG: 9501270033
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-12 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Length aside, how good was this latest Most Important Speech of Clinton's Presidency?
Probably not good enough, if by "important" is meant improving the president's problematic re-election prospects. It's hard to imagine how any single speech could do much for a president whose performance, two years after election by only a plurality, continues to win approval from no more than a minority of Americans.
Indeed, each readjustment by Clinton serves to reinforce public doubts about his commitment to principle, about whether he himself knows what he stands for. Politically, the president's best hope may lie in the volatility of the electorate these days.
But if by "important" is meant keeping open the possibilities for progress on issues of great concern to the nation, despite the return of fiercely divided government,the president did well.
The speech was conciliatory in what it said - and didn't say.
Apart from a request for a minimum-wage increase, for example, Clinton proposed none of the specific legislation that presidents often propose in State of the Union speeches. This was more than simple recognition of the obvious reality that Republicans now control the congressional agenda; by forgoing an opportunity to present a competing agenda, Clinton signaled his interest in seeking areas of cooperation rather than conflict with Congress.
Similarly, Clinton singled out only one possible GOP initiative for threatened veto: He would try to block any repeal of the assault-gun ban enacted last year.
The president who has done more than any other in years to actually reduce the deficit also reiterated his opposition to the balanced-budget amendment, a gimmick much beloved by most Republicans and many Democrats. But that disagreement hardly seems the stuff of serious friction between the legislative and the executive, since proposed constitutional amendments aren't subject to presidential veto.
Much of the specch was occupied by a return to "New Democrat" themes with which few would disagree. Individuals must take responsibility for their own lives. The world is changing and government must change with it. The federal government must be shrunk. Welfare must be reformed. Jobs must be created.
On those issues, the president did not so much challenge GOP positions as claim (with some justice) that the administration has already accomplished more than it gets credit for. Arguing over credit-taking, while it can get contentious, nonetheless works better than blame-throwing battles as an incentive for positive action.
Health-care reform was a centerpiece of the State of the Union speech a year ago; Clinton's inability to win a bill from a Democrat-controlled Congress is a failure so spectacular that he could hardly let it go entirely unmentioned. He asked the Republican Congress to work with the administration on incremental reforms they both could agree on - an approach that, if employed last year by the president, might have kept this year's Congress in Democratic hands.
The president's plea for a more civil political discourse would be helped along if his own party got off House Speaker Newt Gingrich's book-royalties case and moved on to work that matters. Clinton certainly is not standing in the way.
by CNB