Tuesday, November 12, 1996
FUTURE:
Clinton’s second term promises more than what it will likely be
able to deliverBy Darrin Hurwitz
When the smoke clears, who really won the elections of 1996 and
what do they mean for us?
At the Biltmore Hotel downtown, where Democrats including myself
gathered to watch election returns, the mood was clearly one of
victory. Sure almost everyone had expected President Clinton to win
a second term for months, but to see it finally happen, to watch
the president boldly proclaim his vision for the 21st century on
the steps of the Old State House in Little Rock, provided a sense
of relief and satisfaction for all of us who had worked on the
campaign.
But for all the celebration and the confetti, the excited
speakers who took the podium, and the "Clinton/Gore ’96" signs
waving to the television cameras, there was a tempering, even
troubling side to the election results. On the one hand we watched
President Clinton declare a few minutes past 9 p.m. that "Today the
American people have spoken. They have affirmed our course; they
have told us to go forward.” At the same time, despite the
president’s optimism, who could avoid noticing that Republicans had
made gains in the Senate, had held on to the House, and that
Proposition 209 was well on its way to victory in California?
So who won the election of 1996? Was Clinton’s reelection, as
the Democratic pundits have claimed, a denouncement of the
so-called Republican revolution? There is certainly some validity
to this claim, as evidenced by Clinton’s remarkable rise in the
polls since the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and his
solid victory last Tuesday.
Or are Republican leaders correct when they assert that the
election was a show of support for the Republican agenda the past
two years? Without perhaps going that far, it should be noted that
voters were seemingly wary of giving the president a free hand in
governing the country.
The ambiguity of the message voters were trying to send will be
a task for political analysts to sort out for years to come. What
is apparent, though, and what is troubling for progressives like
myself, is that election year 1996 seems to portend a declining
role for a proactive government and a diminishment of our
commitment to the poor and to minorities.
Clinton’s vision appears to be the right one for America.
Combining personal responsibility with the obligation of the
government to ensure opportunity strikes at the chord of
long-standing and co-existing American values of individualism and
community.
But as Clinton found frustratingly in his first term,
establishing a proactive agenda to address a variety of concerns is
easier said than done. Faced with opposition, first from
conservative members of his own party and then from a Republican
Congress willing to use any means, including character
assassination, to thwart any sort of positive government action,
Clinton’s accomplishments seem like a hodgepodge of small successes
without the coherent vision of his campaign agenda.
Now in his second term, Clinton will likely face many of the
same problems. While voters in countless polls have expressed a
desire to see the government address complex issues such as
education, the environment and other social concerns with
practical, thoughtful solutions, Republican leaders have already
dropped hints that they will effectively undermine Clinton’s
ability to fulfill his campaign promises by seeking to shift
attention to so-called scandals and away from the real issues
facing Americans.
Once again the president may be on the defensive, defending his
character, defending education, defending the environment,
defending Medicare. Once again, proactive government policy, such
as Clinton’s proposed tax deduction for university tuition or his
HOPE Scholarship which would make community college accessible to
anyone, may be held up by those in Congress who seek to destroy the
safety net, those who seek to eliminate any positive role for
government.
The 104th Congress’ agenda, in attempting to rollback past
governmental achievements, including environmental legislation,
public safety laws and student loans, was largely retroactive
rather than proactive. The next Congress, under the same
leadership, seems likely to pursue a similar agenda.
What is so disappointing is that not only may Clinton’s best
intentions never be fully realized, but that his self-proclaimed
"bridge to the 21st century" may not be open to all Americans. At
least this seems to be the general trend. Under attack recently and
labeled as scapegoats for the nation’s problems are immigrants, the
poor and minorities.
The passage of Proposition 209 is evidence of this and also an
obstacle to Clinton’s forward-looking agenda. Not only is it a
serious set-back for civil rights in California but it probably
sets the stage for the rolling back of affirmative anti
discrimination programs across the country. Once again the role of
the government in ensuring opportunity appears to be
diminished.
The philosophy of government defined by FDR in the 1930s, one
which originated government’s role as a provider of opportunity and
as a proactive force concerned with addressing the nation’s needs,
has been successfully smeared as "big government" by conservatives
eager to cut any and all social programs.
Today’s push for "smaller government" though, is
counterproductive to a society that is rapidly becoming more
technologically advanced and more racially diverse, where complex
problems demand complex solutions. America of the 1990s demands an
effective, active federal government.
So where do we go from here? The attitude of many in government
clearly reflects broader trends of societal distrust and cynicism,
which have their roots in the assassinations of the 1960s, Vietnam
and Watergate. We are finally witnessing the impact of these
attitudes, both in the recent lack of pragmatic policy-making as
well as in the gradual decline in voter turnout.
Ultimately, the lesson of 1996 for progressives should be to
remain vigilant. Stay involved in the political process, even in
off-election years; hold your representatives accountable and
educate yourselves and others. Only through active participation
can we perhaps turn the tide and sometime in the future advance
Clinton’s optimistic vision of a proactive government, which
ensures opportunity for all of its citizens and protects society’s
weakest. Until then we’ll have to be patient.
Darrin Hurwitz is a fourth-year political science student and is
the Political Outreach director of Bruin Democrats.