Is the president a waffler?

• Author: Paul, Jeremy

Though Bill Clinton has surely been delighted by the venomous brawl for the Republican nomination, that venom will soon be aimed squarely at the President himself Republicans will call him a big government, tax-and-spend, pro-abortion liberal. And, of course, they'll brand him an inveterate waffler. "Bill Clinton," says Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican National Committee, "shares with the hummingbird the incredible ability to turn 180 degrees in a split second."

This image has dogged Clinton from early in his presidency. A number of prominent campaign promises--to enact a middle-class tax cut, for example--were quickly abandoned. In 1995, the President suddenly supported balancing the budget in seven years. Even die-hard supporters threw up their hands in frustration when Clinton told a crowd of wealthy supporters in Houston, "You think I raised your taxes too much [in 1993]. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."

Reversals like these give Americans reason to doubt Clinton's sincerity. But if he deserves partial blame for his weak-kneed image, so does the narrow-minded press, the cynical opposition, and the contradictory wishes of the American people. It is crucial to discern where Clinton has truly "waffled" and where he's smartly compromised; where he's retreated in cowardice, and where he's changed course in the face of new information; where he refuses to take a stand out of political opportunism, and where his ambivalence reflects the ambivalence of the country. In 1996, many Americans are insisting on a leader who speaks for the sensible center. But Clinton's record of being punched in the nose for breaking with ideological extremes raises the question: Can we really handle a truly moderate president?

Imagine the scenario of two parents with a difficult teenage son. He doesn't do his schoolwork or chores; at times, he is openly defiant. One parent, call him the "conservative" father, offers a clear solution. "We're just not being tough enough. We have to have clear rules and impose swift, immediate punishment when they're violated." The other parent, call her the "liberal" mother, is equally certain. "Our problem," she says, "is that we aren't encouraging enough. We need to love and support him no matter what he does."

Broadly speaking, each parent represents an extreme ideological position. Conservatives want to be Jeremy Paul is a professor of law at the University of Connecticut. Research assistance was provided by Christopher Stratton. tough and demanding. Liberals want to be generous and forgiving. But most of us realize that neither position makes sense in all cases. Children need both understanding and a firm hand. With only the latter, they'll likely grow hostile and detached. With only the former, they may quit trying.

This is as true for stubborn questions of policy as it is for child-rearing. On welfare, for example, it doesn't make sense to offer the underclass only Horatio Alger tales and stem exhortations to "get a job." Without training and child-care, welfare mothers are likely to have a hard time surviving in the workplace. On the other hand, it is equally true that unlimited compassion--without any demands or expectations--can sap individual initiative and lead to permanent dependence. On this issue, as well as many others, Bill Clinton has smartly claimed the middle ground, proposing to limit welfare payments but also offer training and childcare. He also champions the positive role of government, but insists that it be more efficient and less expensive. On issue after issue, Clinton resists the formulaic approaches of both left and right, instead looking for reasonable solutions.

It shouldn't surprise us much that neither conservatives nor rabid liberals have much affection for this administration. But shouldn't a largely moderate nation cheer Clinton's...