THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, April 9, 1995 TAG: 9504070644
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 162 lines
As a loyal Democrat and longtime political analyst, Bob Beckel has seen government and politics from the inside and the outside for more than 25 years. With the Republicans in control of Congress and confident of capturing the White House in 1996, Beckel hasn't allowed the Democrats' ``out'' status to temper his views.
In a half-hour discussion with staff writer Dave Addis, Beckel held fast to the belief that political obituaries of Bill Clinton are premature, and that the Republicans' ``Contract With America'' is beginning to sag under the weight that burdens many contracts: a nervous fretting over all the fine print.
From taking an activist role in Bobby Kennedy's 1968 presidential foray to running Walter Mondale's campaign in 1984, Beckel knows full well how the gears of a national campaign mesh, and what can happen to throw it all out of whack. Overlaid on his political experience is a hard-won knowledge of international relations: As a ranking State Department official under Jimmy Carter, he helped push through Congress the Panama Canal treaties, the Mideast peace initiative and the SALT II accord.
Beckel is a frequent guest host on CNN's ``Crossfire'' and ``Larry King Live,'' and often appears as an analyst on network news programs.
Here is an edited transcript of Beckel's views of the contemporary political scene:
Q. There are a couple of contrasting views of the current political status of Bill Clinton. One is that he is mortally wounded, ineffectual and nearly irrelevant. The second is that he is lying back in the bushes, hoping the Republicans will produce a social and economic plan so frightening to the majority of Americans that Clinton will be able to paint them once again as the party of the rich and privileged, and allow him to recapture his populist, friend-of-the-middle class image in time for the '96 elections. Do you subscribe to either of those scenarios? Which holds the most water?
A. I think that Bill Clinton's chances of being re-elected president were enhanced dramatically by the Republicans taking over the Congress, because that act did something that he hasn't been able to do himself, which is to allow him to define himself in contrast to something. Before, he was always jostling with his own party and with these old-bull chairmen of the Democrats on Capitol Hill, and in that process he looked weak and compromising.
Now, I think the Republicans will hand him numerous targets, and I think the public, particularly when it comes to electing presidents, are cautious and conservative - not necessarily conservative ideologically, but conservative in the sense they want to be sure there is a good checks-and-balance system. And already we're seeing poll data that shows that the Republicans and (House Speaker Newt) Gingrich, particularly in the House, are beginning to frighten people, and voters want to be sure that there is somebody that is going to have a check and balance on them. So I think, ironically, that Gingrich has done more to help Clinton than any other single politician.
Q. Do you believe that the second scenario, the fear of an effective Clinton counterattack, is behind the move by some Republicans to soften elements of the Contract With America, such as term limits and the tax-cut plan?
A. I think that's part of it, sure. I think (Sen. Robert) Dole particularly would want to see a lot of this become less of a target. But I also think a lot of the softening is coming from the grass roots. When you start taking on hot-lunch programs, no matter what the merits - and in some cases the Republicans have made a fairly legitimate case - it is so easily attacked and so easily demagogued.
Q.If you were in charge of the Bill Clinton re-election campaign, what would you be encouraging him to do right now?
A. I would continue to be the kind of moderate voice of reason in the political debate on a lot of these hotly charged issues, and I would continue to take the ones I think make sense and get credit for it. . . . I think he's doing fine that way. I think some of these issues, though, like affirmative action, particularly, that's one you can't play politics with, and I think they're trying to do that. And I think that's the time for him to stand up and say enough's enough, this is one we ought to leave out of the political dialogue.
Q. Do you anticipate an effective primary-election challenge of Bill Clinton? If so, who's likely to mount it?
A. I don't think there will be unless something happens that we can't foresee, and/or ``Whitewatergate'' becomes a bigger issue than it now appears to be. . . Now, you know, there's a possibility (the Rev. Jesse) Jackson, on affirmative action alone, could get his back up and take a run at it, but right now I think Clinton's safe in that category.
Q. Two rather large political wild cards may come back into play in the '96 presidential race: Ross Perot and Colin Powell. If you had to predict today what role each will play, what would your prediction be?
A. I don't think either will run. Particularly if Dole gets the nomination, because they'll feel comfortable with Dole; they both like him. I think they would like to see Clinton gone, and they know a third-party candidacy would probably help Clinton, particularly in Perot's case. Now in Powell's case that's a mixed issue, because of the race issue. But I think that they would prefer to see Dole as president.
Q. In Colin Powell's case, what do you make of polls that show upwards of 70 percent of American voters would support him, although he has never said what party he would represent, or given much of a hint as to his basic political philosophy?
A. I just think what people know about Colin Powell - it's like the Contract for America, when you hear it, it sounds wonderful, until you get into the details. Now the details of Colin Powell may be just fine, but we don't know what they are. But right now if you put him up in this climate, when people are bitter and cynical, the guy has a lot of assets. . . It changes if he decides to start running.
Q. Whom would you pick at this point as the most likely Republican nominee in the presidential race?
A. I have a sneaking suspicion that when you make a choice between Dole and (Texas Sen. Phil) Gramm, that Dole looks a lot better. . . They love front-runners. And Dole's never been a front-runner, but this time around he's got virtually the whole Republican establishment tied up, and that matters a lot more in Republican politics than it does in Democratic politics.
Q. Do you anticipate that the Republican nominee, whoever it is, will light up the ``angry white male'' radar once again? If so, are we in for a long presidential campaign heavy on such hot-collar issues as affirmative action, quotas, welfare and food stamps?
A. I think right now that looks like a good target for the Republicans. But if this debate can be changed and put in context, and I think it can, then people will come to realize that the greatest recipients of affirmative action and quotas are white women. . . . If it's a debate of white guys against black guys getting jobs, with the black guys favored, then it's a very divisive and I think potentially explosive issue. This is one issue, I'm telling you, of all the ones we've had out there for a long time, this one's got the potential to be the most explosive social issue since the civil rights debates of the '60s.
Q. Some Democratic heavy-hitters who lost last November, notably Mario Cuomo of New York and Ann Richards of Texas, have been saying they actually are glad the Republicans captured both houses of Congress, that the GOP will be forced to deliver on promises that it simply cannot deliver on. Is there merit to what they say, or is this just some convenient, brave-face rationalization by failed Democrat candidates?
A. A combination of both. For the Democratic Party in the long term, I do think it was a helpful event because, particularly in the House, they had become so inside and out of touch. . . . But more than that, I think they've got an opportunity to define themselves better, and that's good. The Republicans, I think, are not very good at the congressional level at governing. They're good at the White House level of governing, because they know that a lot better.
Q. Has the Republican revolution maintained enough momentum to carry through to state and local elections in places like Virginia, where the GOP is edging closer to control and legislative offices are up for a vote this fall?
A. No, I don't think it does have legs. It's already 90, 80 days, whatever it is now, and it's already running into a very rocky road. . . . And if there were something that was done here that dramatically changed government, and people could see it and feel it in their own lives, the people would say, ``Hell, if it works over there, it can work at the State House.'' But I don't think they're gonna have that sense. In fact, I think, ironically, unless they produce some real change here, it could go the other way. MEMO: ODU Speech
WHO: Political analyst Bob Beckel
WHAT: Old Dominion University's President Lecture Series. Speech is
free and open to the public.
WHEN: 8 p.m. Thursday
WHERE: Mills Godwin Jr. Building, Old Dominion
ILLUSTRATION: Color drawing by Ken Wright, Staff
Color photo
Bob Beckel
KEYWORDS: INTERVIEW by CNB