Playing to the Crowd : Clinton had forgotten that character makes the man. But the public didn’t

Has the Clinton Administration finally turned a corner? Last weekend saw another round of the now familiar process of nomination by trial balloon. But in press confer ences on Tuesday and again on Thursday, the President charmed the press corps, attacked the Republicans, defined his agenda and could rightly claim credit for some progress. Dare we hope that the President who stood up for himself and fought for his ideas last week will turn out to be the real Bill Clinton?

Clinton got himself elected President. He is a superb politician and an extremely smart and thoughtful man. But his White House has not reflected that: The Clinton most Americans have seen as President has been a waffling, indecisive, weak leader.

It’s easy to blame the press for some of Clinton’s problems, as many inside the White House apparently do. We’ve become a country that demands instant judgments on everything, and that is driven by the overnight measurements of public opinion. The press gives thumbs-up and thumbs-down on the President every day. And in doing so, they reflect the polls, which means that once it starts going badly, it’s hard to shake.

The Clinton Administration has set about to solve what it considers its “communications problem” by tending the press better (Will more picnics really bring better stories?) and by more skillfully packaging its accomplishments. That may well help more than it should--but it’s still only part of the problem.

The country has turned, temporarily at least, on this presidency not only because the press corps hasn’t been well-fed its food and information, but also because of the way this Administration has gone about the business of making decisions. You can’t dismiss this as mere process. How you run the government, how you lead, is not a process question--it’s about character.

Character is an issue in every presidential election. It is in character terms that we form a relationship with our leaders, and that we judge them. George Bush lost the presidency not only because the economy turned sour, but because Americans had decided he stood for nothing. That was about character.

The problem now is not simply that people were mistreated, or issues confused. It isn’t just etiquette lessons that this White House needs. Ultimately, this government by trial balloon raises questions of strength and commitment, which reflect poorly on the character of the man who is President. Clinton’s problem is not that he is too liberal, or too conservative, but that people are no longer sure what he stands for. It is not that he has lost touch with the pulse of the nation but that he is paying too much attention to its daily fluctuation, too willing to listen and not secure enough to lead.

Clinton may regret the leaks (and if that is so, why does his own staff keep at it with such abandon?) but he cannot deny that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Judge Stephen G. Breyer were treated shabbily when their names were floated as possible Supreme Court nominees. Indeed, the most unusual aspect of Clinton’s Monday announcement that Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was his choice for the Supreme Court was his lavish praise of the “runners-up”--a clear acknowledgment that apologies were owed.

Nor is there any denying that these two men now join the long list of those who’ve enjoyed their 10 minutes of infamy due to a White House dependent on trial balloons. Just a little more than a week before, it was C. Lani Guinier who was tainted by criticisms. But Clinton never defended her nomination to the Justice Department. Instead, he watched from the sidelines while the other side presented its views of her and shaped an image of her for the country. He watched her get shot down, and then he pulled her.

Also on this list: former Sen. and would-be Secretary of Interior or Energy Timothy E. Wirth, leaked and then shot down during the transition, who ended up in a sub-Cabinet position at the State Department; soon-to-be Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, who should have gotten the job in January if the Administration had been willing to stand up for him; Chicago political maestro Bill Daley, shot down as transportation secretary; Harvard economist and campaign adviser Lawrence H. Summers, shot down as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, who ended up in a less visible position at the World Bank; Charles F.C. Ruff, would-be deputy attorney general, who also had a “Zoe Baird problem”; not to mention Zoe Baird herself and Judge Kimba M. Wood, who paid the Social Security taxes, but was hung out to dry, anyway.

The same pattern has been evident when issues are at stake. Clinton allows the other side to frame the public debate. Often, the first time he speaks on an issue is when he caves in to the opposition.

In the manner, the cities have seen the economic-stimulus package come--and go. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan) led a filibuster, and the President caved. The President, after confronting the issue of gays in the military during the first weeks of his Administration, now appears poised to hand a victory to Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), who led the opposition to the Clinton approach. At least that’s where trial balloons seem headed.

Now, Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.) and the oil and gas industry are the apparent victors on the issue of the energy tax; the Administration, after emphasizing the broad-based BTU tax as a key element of the economic plan, and twisting arms to win passage in the House, has been eerily quiet about its abandonment in the Senate. And that’s just the domestic front.

In his defense, Clinton has argued that he has been decisive--particularly in insisting on deficit reduction. That is true. But the number of different taxes that have been floated in recent months have left many Americans convinced that the only thing the Administration is certain of is that the middle class must pay more in taxes. Meanwhile, his advisers’ argument that the President must govern by trial balloon and must compromise at every turn because he isn’t strong enough to do it any other way is a self-fulfilling prophesy. You don’t get stronger by acting weaker.

If Dole and Nunn and Boren can take on the President and win, why shouldn’t others line up to do it? What could be an easier target than a leader who’s afraid? Besides, Babbitt and Breyer were both eminently confirmable, if the President had been willing to wage the fight.

Clinton’s problem right now is America’s problem. The latest Times poll reflects a loss of confidence not only in the President but also in the nation. We are a country that believes we’re on the wrong track--and doesn’t see solutions from anyone. That is not a good place for America to be at a time when the challenges we face are so great.

The problem is not simply Clinton’s character, but America’s. With confidence in the institutions of government at an all-time low, all that is left to sustain us is confidence in the men and women we have chosen to lead us. If we are to deal with our problems, we need a President who will be better than we are, who has the moral authority, the commitment to call forth the better angels of our nature--to call on us to sacrifice, to pay more in taxes, or get less in benefits. Clinton is, for the next three-and-a-half years, the only President we have. Unless he can deal with his character problems, the country will have a hard time dealing with its own.