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

DATE: WEDNESDAY, July 12, 1995                   TAG: 9507120038
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

CLINTON'S CALL

HAD SAMUEL Johnson been a man of the 20th instead of the 18th Century, he might have modified his observation that ``patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'' to include President Clinton's call for civility.

In an extemporaneous speech delivered at Georgetown University, the president called on the nation's political figures to have ``more conversation and less combat'' and to help Americans find ``common ground'' concerning the proper role of government. It is hard to imagine the president giving this speech had the election results been different last November.

``We can't restore the American dream unless we can find some way to bring the American people closer together,'' said Clinton. Then he committed a grievous ideological error when he said, ``How we resolve these differences is as important as what specific position we advocate.''

This is precisely the philosophy so many of the president's generation (himself included) brought to the debate about Soviet expansionism and every other foreign-policy challenge of the Cold War. Former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick correctly and derisively labeled it ``moral equivalency.'' The Soviet system, though built on a different political, economic and theological base from our own, could still be controlled if only the West was nice to Soviet leaders, understood their ``fears'' and proved that we weren't a threat to them. To many of the baby boomers, being liked was more important than being right, and having polite conversation was better than victory. The advent of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher put that strategy - and the Soviet Union - to rest.

Now comes President Clinton seeking to apply the same wrong-headed philosophy to domestic politics. Since he and the Democrats have run out of ammunition, they now want to talk peace with their opponents, who have fought long and hard and are so close to complete victory.

Slowly, the president's election strategy is emerging. Instead of running against Washington, he will run against himself. Like Richard Nixon, who sought to give birth to a ``new Nixon'' in contrast to the ``old,'' the ``old'' and ``new'' Clinton are one and the same, but with different political advisers trying to reposition their man.

Before last November, the president and his party did not consult those who disagree with them on matters economic, social or political. Courts and Congresses under the control of liberal Democrats rammed through their misguided and failed ideas and imposed them on the rest of us. Squishy Republicans who succumbed to the onslaught defined ``civility'' for Democrats. Those who stood for principle and refused to be rolled were labeled fanatics and extremists.

Now this president, seeing the possibility of an even greater disaster for himself and his party, is trying to persuade us that principles don't matter. Politeness does. If you agree, you'll get a congeniality award.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich came close to being sucked into this trap during his meeting with the president in New Hampshire. But nothing was resolved. Even their civil agreement on campaign-finance reform isn't going anywhere. Those who watched the New Hampshire spectacle and lack firm opinions might have felt good for a while, which is the goal of this president. He believes he succeeds when people feel good about him, not when he pursues workable policies.

Political passion, informed by facts, contributes to vibrant democracy and political participation. Debate about issues and politicians was far more passionate in the past than it is today. The country survived, even prospered, with greater numbers involved in the political process. Politics then was not polite discussion but emotional debate about issues that mattered most to the future of our country.

In his last public address, on April 11, 1865, Abraham Lincoln said, ``Important principles may and must be inflexible.'' The current president is asking us to make a bargain with the political devils: to trade principle for his version of flexible civility. The bargain should be rejected.

- Los Angeles Times Syndicate

by CNB