Editorial: Where has Clinton been?

A brief review of recent major news stories: Attorneys for 40 U.S. states announce a landmark but flawed settlement with the major tobacco companies. The Supreme Court, in a flurry of far-reaching decisions, voids part of the popular "Brady Bill" requiring states to conduct background checks for prospective gun buyers, opens the door for state-funded special education in religious schools and tells states to decide controversial right-to-die issues by themselves. Hong Kong reverts back to Chinese rule. The Middle East peace process breaks down -- again. And so on and so forth. Now for a short quiz: What major American personality was almost entirely absent from the nation's airwaves and newspapers during this historic period? Let me give you a couple of hints: He has the most famous pasty, white thighs in America as well as weaknesses for pies, McDonald's food, shady real-estate deals and Arkansas state workers. His absence is not, however, particularly surprising -- especially to anyone who followed last year's presidential elections. Think back to Clinton's giant Hill Field rally. Do you remember hearing or seeing anything interesting, historic or courageous (apart, of course, from President Rodin's infamous black leather miniskirt) during the rally? Neither do I -- and for a good reason. Nothing of any interest or import happened at the Penn event, or at any of Clinton's other pre-election visits to the nation's college campuses. The speech was the same, the jokes (about Socks having his own Web page) were the same. And, as in all the other speeches, Clinton's Quaker address was entirely devoid of new ideas. Well, not entirely devoid of new ideas -- just devoid of any large-scale initiatives with which to define his second term. I suppose it makes a certain sense. After winning an election by trying not to offend anyone (by, say, offering up something that might actually make a difference, like a workable health-care plan), Clinton has apparently decided to follow the same strategy in office. So we get Clinton's proposed presidential commission to study, and presumably attempt to solve, the nation's racial problems; tax credits to help low-income families afford two years of public college (bad news, Penn parents). And, most recently, his plan to rescue the nation's inner cities by helping 2,000 police officers purchase houses in poor neighborhoods. All of which, on paper, sound fine -- which is exactly the problem. The proposals are designed to be totally unobjectionable, and indeed, the Republican congressional leadership has indicated that it will support all the new plans. You don't have to be a cynic (or, God forbid, a Republican) to question what, if any, impact these modest proposals will have. We are left, therefore, with a president seemingly content to ride out his last years in public office, one trying not to rock the boat. It often appears like Clinton is trying to gather strength for another election, to complete some nice, small new programs to get some positive publicity before Election Day 2000 -- when Vice President Al Gore will inevitably be up for the nation's highest office. But the strategy that won him re-election is entirely inappropriate for his second term. There are, after all, no more elections to win, no more offices to hold. Having done what every politicians wants to do more than anything else -- win re-election -- Clinton should devote the rest of his time in office to doing something grand, something worthy of a president who billed himself as the Man from Hope. The nation's problems are too vast and varied to be solved by small-scale, uncontroversial, ideas like a commission on racism. America needs, and deserves, better. The president's reluctance to try anything daring is understandable for a man whose first term was almost destroyed by grandiose plans such as his attempt to reform the entire American health care system. But having won re-election, and with the economy zooming to record heights and his Republican opposition in disarray, the time is right to dust off the political boxing gloves and get back into the ring. Now is the time to experiment with one of those radical ideas Clinton must have developed while not inhaling weed at Oxford. What, after all, is there to lose? Clinton, like most American presidents, has been said to be concerned about his place in history. But the man often referred to as the "Ultimate Politician" seems to have forgotten that history is not an election, and that the great are remembered not for treading softly and not upsetting the balance too much on either side, but for leading a hesitant and fearful nation to a brighter tomorrow. It is a lesson William Jefferson Clinton would do well to remember.