CONVENTION '96: SITTING PRETTY

(4 of 5)

Will the historic midterm election of 1994, which gave Republicans control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, be seen in retrospect as the key to the first re-election of a Democratic President in 52 years (since F.D.R.'s last term)? In the months leading up to the '94 election, especially with the collapse of his ambitious health-care reform, Clinton seemed like "dead meat," to use the dainty Beltway terminology. At first the Republican revolution made Clinton's doom seem even more certain. But it hasn't worked out that way. Many have noted the irony: elected on a promise to end Washington gridlock, Clinton may get re-elected as the guarantor of gridlock. He is Horatius at the bridge, our lonely defender against the Newtite hordes. Or (less partisan version): Americans have discovered that they like gridlock, as a protection against the excesses of both parties. They have not turned against the Republican vision of smaller government--they just don't trust Speaker Gingrich to control himself.

American voters are hypocritical about many things, but none more so than "change." They want it, until it looks as if they might get it. "Change" was Clinton's mantra in 1992. Yet fear of change was a powerful force for the Republicans once he was elected. The most effective theme in their campaign against Clinton's health-care reform, for example, was that you might--might--not be able to keep your same doctor. So the Republicans got control of Congress, also promising change, and also got stung when they tried to deliver change.

Of course, Americans are in for a disappointment if they think they can somehow enjoy the benefits of the Republican small-government revolution while President Clinton protects them from the cost. Republicans are understandably furious at Clinton for implying that he can produce this alchemy (although Dole is now promising the same magic). And they are understandably annoyed that the voters, having invited them to conduct their revolution, should now seem inclined to punish them for doing so. It's hard not to sympathize: the Republicans made the rare mistake, upon taking over Congress, of acting on their principles--after 14 years and two G.O.P. Administrations of merely talking about them. Presumably they've learned their lesson.

5. "DICK MORRIS"

These two words (the name of Clinton's chief campaign guru) are shorthand for the proposition that Clinton's apparently winning re-election strategy is essentially to become a Republican. Clinton's conservative opponents see this as both an explanation and a consolation: even if he wins, they are prepared to claim a moral victory. There is obviously something to this, but there is a large pshaw factor as well. "Capture the center" is the usual game in politics, and Republicans have played it skillfully over the years. Once again, there seems to be a feeling that for a Democrat to play it just as skillfully is somehow cheating.