Clinton at the crossroads.

• Author: Bresler, Robert J.
• Position: Column

UNTIL THE DEFEAT of George Bush, economic performance was a strong determinant of presidential approval. Using economic data as a predictor model, Bush should have been reelected easily. In 1992, the economy was recovering: growth was up, inflation was under control, interest rates were down, and unemployment was declining. The recovery has continued under Pres. Clinton, yet his approval has hovered around a low 40%. Certainly, a weak economy can spell defeat for an incumbent, but a strong peacetime economy may not guarantee public approval or even reelection.

This phenomenon reflects the uncertainties of the era, changes Americans have yet to comprehend. The economy, strong as it may appear, is buffeted by global competition and technological innovation that threatens blue-collar workers and professionals alike; the social environment, characterized by cultural norms that value self-expression over self-control, is beset with an array of pathologies--drug usage, unwed teen pregnancy, divorce, and violent crime--on a scale unthinkable 40 years ago; and the international environment has seen chaos and anarchy replace the grim stability of the Cold War.

This era, confusing and unsettling to many, requires a president who can steer in a sea of fog and provide public confidence and reassurance. Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were masters at this. Their optimistic, buoyant, and self-confident natures provided tonic in difficult times and altered the sour and pessimistic public mood they inherited. Despite the inevitable compromises and gaps between promise and performance, the electorate felt they had a core of beliefs that defined their public persona.

Bush and Clinton stand in sharp contrast. After the dramatic and sudden climax of the Cold War and the exhilarating victory in the Gulf War, Bush had no domestic agenda and no clear sense of what a conservative administration should do in the post-Reagan era. In effect, he demonstrated no comprehension of the impact of the changes he, in part, had brought about. Thus, he was unable to explain in convincing language why he should be granted a second term.

Clinton's leadership problem is different. While Bush lacked a sense of direction, Clinton wants to move in two different directions simultaneously--toward the center and toward the left, a political impossibility. Were Clinton to have a coherent centrist strategy, he would build upon the support he received in the 1992 election from the...