NEWS ANALYSIS : Clinton’s Role as ‘New Democrat’ Faces Key Tests

Moving forward quickly after President Clinton and Congress return from August vacation are a series of issues that may provide the President with his best--and perhaps last--chance to reclaim the “new Democrat” mantle tarnished during his Administration’s first seven months.

In the weeks ahead, debates over health care, crime, reinventing government and the North American Free Trade Agreement will test not only Clinton’s commitment to building a bipartisan coalition, but also whether such a coalition is possible at all in Washington’s aggressively polarized political climate.

“He has reached the fork in the road of his presidency,” said Democratic consultant Brian Lunde. “He either takes the path that defines him as a traditional liberal Democrat, or he takes the road that comes from his campaign themes and defines him as a new Democrat.”

From the start, Clinton’s Administration has been an uneasy--and sometimes unsuccessful--attempt to balance his campaign promises of new policy directions with the priorities of traditional Democratic interest groups and legislative leaders.

Although White House officials acknowledge that Clinton’s image as a moderate and a reformer was badly damaged by the early fights over his budget plan and his proposal to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, many have long maintained that he can regain his balance once he moves onto the rest of his agenda.

With health care, NAFTA, crime and reinventing government now finally surfacing, “there’s a synergy . . . that adds up to new Democrat,” one ranking White House aide said.

These are the issues Clinton’s aides have long considered crucial to broadening the President’s appeal to moderate, independent and middle-class voters, while shedding the GOP portrait of him as a tax-and-spend liberal masquerading behind centrist rhetoric.

But Clinton still must pass the same political tests he often flunked during the first stage of his Administration, many close observers say. “Everyone is still waiting for the signs of presidential conviction to back up the campaign rhetoric,” Lunde said.

On crime, the White House has already displayed firmness in writing a bill that follows Clinton’s centrist campaign agenda.

The bill expands the use of the federal death penalty and manifests his campaign promise to substantially expand the number of police on city streets, despite public concerns from Atty. Gen. Janet Reno that such money might be better directed toward crime prevention programs aimed at young people.

Although the GOP will oppose certain elements of the crime bill, senior Republican aides in both the House and Senate recently predicted that an overall compromise can be reached if Clinton accepts modifications on his proposal to impose a waiting period for handgun purchases.

Some NAFTA supporters say they remain unsure whether the Administration intends to aggressively push the free trade deal with Mexico and Canada against substantial Democratic opposition in the House, even with the appointment last week of attorney William Daley as chief lobbyist for the pact.

Similarly, close observers say they are nervous that the Administration task force charged with finding ways to streamline the government may be blunted by the same reluctance to cross dug-in Washington interests that weakened Clinton’s budget plan.

While planning Clinton’s original budget bill, the Administration made what one adviser called “anticipatory cave-ins”--preemptively shelving proposed budget cuts that might anger powerful Democratic legislators and constituencies. Some participants in the National Performance Review, headed by Vice President Al Gore, say they worry that the exercise might be diluted by the same impulse.

Gore has been presenting Cabinet secretaries with proposals that could result in a reduction of the federal work force by an additional 100,000-150,000 positions beyond the 100,000 Clinton has already promised to eliminate, sources say.

While some officials--such as Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry G. Cisneros--have generally welcomed reforms, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen and some others are vigorously resisting them, one participant said.

In addition, wails are already radiating back from the bureaucracy about ideas such as merging the operations of nine federal agencies with oversight responsibilities along the U.S.-Mexico border into the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

As the Administration sorts through these responses, a division has emerged among those working on the report, participants say.

Generally the strongest advocates of sharp cuts and consolidations have been the outside advisers--both political advisers like Paul Begala, Stanley B. Greenberg and Democratic Leadership Council President Al From and aides to Texas Comptroller John Sharp, whose own state audit is the model for the federal effort. But in recent meetings, White House and vice presidential staff members have indicated more concern about the potential of alienating key members of Congress.

“It just kills me that they are worried about that after the budget,” said one hawk on the task force. “You need blood and teeth on the street to get anyone to pay attention. You have to take on some congressmen to make it work.”

The source added: “If they stick to their guns, the recommendations could be real meaningful and could help take away a lot of the (Ross) Perot constituency. . . . But they are starting to rewrite some recommendations and show signs of wimping out. Every time the political folks go away, the people in the Old Executive Office Building start to get weird.”

Health care reform will test Clinton’s commitment in another respect: building a bipartisan alliance.

Republicans and Democratic moderates are already raising red flags about anticipated key elements of the final plan--particularly a mandate on all employers to provide insurance, and price controls on health insurance premiums to enforce limits on health care spending.

“He could be in the same position politically (as the budget battle); they have nothing but Democratic votes and they don’t have the party’s center secured,” one longtime Clinton supporter said.

In a speech Thursday, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.)--whose health care reform legislation drew about 30 co-sponsors last year--called on Clinton to “scrap” the mandate on employers and derided price controls as a “heavy-handed bureaucratic control device that puts government officials in charge--not the consuming public.”

For now, White House officials say they are optimistic that such concerns can be overcome. “No public servant today can afford to vote against a reasonable health care package,” one said.

But one Democratic strategist cautions that if moderate Democrats step back from the Administration’s health care reform plan, Republicans are unlikely to scramble over them to bail out the President. “If they see that the moderate Democrats are in the same bind as on the budget, they’re not going to help Clinton out,” he said.

With these visions in mind, some of Clinton’s centrist advisers say they worry that an ideologically polarized health care fight centered on insurance price controls, employer mandates and new taxes could reopen the wounds left by the budget battle--despite all the Administration’s attempts to re-center its image with NAFTA, crime and government reform.

“Clinton comes out of the budget fight with an opportunity to come up with the issues that can define him as a different kind of Democrat,” one intimate said. “But on health care, which is going to overshadow everything else . . , he has to come up with a plan that won’t reinforce the negative impressions of the budget fight.”