In Defense of the President Jude Wanniski July 2, 1996

It did not make the papers, but Jack Kemp sat next to President Clinton last week at a White House breakfast for black religious and civic leaders, a gathering prompted by the continuing burning of black churches in the South. The President himself introduced Kemp to the breakfast group as the Republican most closely identified with the concerns and civil rights of African Americans, a comment that produced a spontaneous ovation. The White House apparently was prompted to invite Kemp after seeing his June 18 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, which offered "A Bipartisan Economic Program" that was mildly even-handed in its criticism of both political parties for their failure to get the economy growing at a healthier clip. While they ate, Kemp asked the President how he got along with Trent Lott, now Senate Majority Leader. When the President waxed enthusiastic, Kemp urged him to have his political advisor, Dick Morris, take a fresh stab at a 7-year budget deal with Lott, whom Morris also has advised during his bipartisan career. As the story is making the rounds, the President told Kemp that he and Lott easily could work out a budget compromise in 24 hours, but that there was a faction in his party that did not want the Republicans to get any credit for a budget deal, and that there was a faction in Kemp's party that did not want the President to get any credit for a deal. Such is the profound nature of the gridlock, which the November elections are not likely to resolve with either a Republican President or a Democratic Congress.

The Beltway Republicans and their friends in the media have persuaded themselves that Bill Clinton can and will in fact be defeated by Bob Dole on November 5 — on the grounds that the American people will reach a critical mass of disgust with the mountain of evidence that Bill and Hillary belong to neither the Boy Scouts nor the Girl Scouts. The electorate, though, did not hire Bill Clinton in 1992 primarily to provide a role model for their sons, nor Hillary for their daughters. The President's job is to guide the executive branch on domestic and foreign policies that would serve the best interests of the nation. In his first two years, he did a rather poor job of trying to interpret the "mandate" given him by only 43% of the vote in a three-way race with George Bush and Ross Perot. Yet he didn't do much damage. The Republican minority in Congress was adroit enough to block his health-care initiatives. And the President wisely stayed on the good side of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, which counts for a lot.

The 1993 tax increase, which Clinton pushed through Congress without a single Republican vote — but with Greenspan's passive assent - was his worst move, but he even has apologized publicly for that. In foreign affairs, his ad hoc approach has worked better than we had any right to expect, with the world mending itself on the margins and in a bit better shape than it was four years ago. With the exception of Mexico, yet another screw-up by Larry Summers and the Ivy Leaguers, the administration's foreign economic policy has been okay, its bark always worse than its bite. Global financial markets have been grateful. My assumption is that a second Clinton term would be better than his first and I believe the U.S. markets agree. Greenspan is firmly in place at the Fed. Although the GOP might lose the House in November, they almost certainly will remain in control of the Senate, with Trent Lott in position at least to make marginal improvements in the tax code. In foreign affairs, the President has run up the learning curve and has a seasoned team in place. There is much less chance of another Mexico and less risk of a breakdown on trade with Japan or China, now that we and our trading partners have become accustomed to the Clinton parameters. The G-7 meeting in Lyons, France during the weekend could be dismissed as merely a photo-op for the President, but he clearly has earned the respect of his global counterparts — who not only are grateful that he has so far effectively brought order to Bosnia, their own backyard, but that he also has not done anything to precipitate a global recession.

This is not the record of a President who can be pitched out of office by Bob Dole — either on the grounds that he did not manage his finances or libido to high standards while Governor of Arkansas, or that he did not run a tight ship at the White House after he arrived from Little Rock. The public opinion polls indicate Bob Dole is the choice of only 5% of African Americans in a matchup with Clinton and that he draws only about a third of the women's vote. There is no way Dole can close the gender gap by policy speeches, campaign advertising or selection of a woman as his running mate. Women and minorities are afraid of Bob Dole because they see in him a Cold Warrior who wants to balance the budget — which is what he is, for goodness sakes. After a 30-year decline in real wages that paralleled the sacrifices of the Cold War, the people at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid have to be frightened by a candidate who: 1) pledges to expand military outlays to confront the hostile world he envisions; 2) threatens to enlarge NATO in order to isolate Russia as a means of stoking that hostility; and 3) vows to balance the budget no matter what it takes. It does not matter how much any of us might prefer Dole to Clinton in the Oval Office, if only to avoid reading about Paula Jones or Hillary's New Age paganism. Ordinary Americans are thoroughly justified in fearing a Dole presidency.

Bob Woodward's fine new book on the '96 campaign, The Choice, could not be more admiring or respectful of Bob Dole's character and contribution to the commonweal. Nor does it leave much doubt about the weaknesses of the First Family. It is completely accurate in the impression it leaves that deep down Dole only is going through the motions, that he ran for the GOP presidential nomination because that has been his partisan goal, but that he is not cut out to be President and would not be terribly disappointed if he didn't make it.

The only choice remaining is the Reform Party that Ross Perot continues to assemble. As unlikely as it sounds, I continue to believe it possible that the Perotistas can be successful in drafting Jack Kemp as the nominee — and that Kemp and Colin Powell or Kemp and New Jersey's Democratic Senator Bill Bradley could team up for a ticket that would provide the national electorate with a Third Choice. The Perot people tell me they practically have been doing handstands to get Kemp interested in the ticket. Many of them see in him about the only real possibility of a winning ticket in November. With Perot or former Colorado Democratic Governor Richard Lamm (or both) on the ticket, the Reform Party would be in it more for the exercise and a more serious effort in the year 2000. John Sears, who had joined me in advising Kemp to take the RP effort seriously, believes it is the only way President Clinton could be unseated in 1996. Sears thinks only some combination of Kemp, Powell and Bradley could do it. The ticket not only would draw most heavily from Clinton-Gore, but it also would do so by raiding the minority and female vote, who would have nothing to fear from any combination of the three — either on domestic or foreign policy.

As of Monday morning, Kemp, who is taking a sun break at his condo in Vail, has advised the Perot people that he cannot respond positively to their entreaties that he at least dip his toe in their waters. His longtime Republican Party friends have been pleading with him to stay aloof, on the grounds that if he does run, it will kill any chance of Dole winning in an upset. The analysis I set forth in this letter suggests the contrary, that the only slim chance Dole has of winning is if Kemp gets into the race — in one way or another.