Subscriptions to CCQ are $50.00 for four issues. Back issues are available for $15.00 per issue. Please make checks payable to: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Send your subscription information or back issue requests to:
The presidential election of 1996 is now history. Many commentators have tried to analyze the national election results in order to predict the future. The stock market has been gripped by euphoria. The general public, tired of it all, has retreated to private concerns and to the comforts of the home. Although our post-election analysis may be mistaken, we would like to make some unusual interpretations for the consideration of our sophisticated readership.
The mandate of President Clinton is very weak. He failed to get over fifty percent of the popular vote. Perot and Dole combined beat him in the popular vote, and the voter turnout was at very low levels. In spite of the large margin (not a "landslide") in the electoral college President Clinton's reelection seems to give no clear signal to the political leaders for the next four years.
Mr. Clinton's 1992 victory was misread by him to signify support for a massive new health care initiative. This failed, as did several other sweeping proposals. The 1994 Congressional election was read by many to signify a sharp turn to the conservative right, with major overhaul of familiar programs of the welfare state. This, too, was a mistaken view, as the 1996 elections revealed. At best, the elections seemed to be an effort to preserve the status quo, and to discourage any new major policy initiatives in Washington. Smaller government, smaller programs, lower ambitions seem to be in fashion at the moment.
Cooperation between the President and Republican leaders in Congress is problematic. So-called bi-partisan government seems to be an unlikely possibility. On issues like lowering the budget deficit and patching some temporary fix on Medicare there will be agreement. It is hard to see that the Democrats and Republicans can agree on touchy education and crime control policies. Neither party really wants to deal with election finance reform, because both have a different base of "fat cat" givers which they depend upon.
Can we yawn now at the next five years and turn our collective attention instead to the gladiatorial combats of four more superbowls? Can the media revive our interest in national politics by teasing us about the chances of Al Gore, Colin Powell and Jack Kemp for the next four years? Perhaps, but it is our feeling that there could be much more than this in President Clinton's next four years.
President Clinton, like all other Presidents, must have a concern with his historical accomplishments. A consideration of ego factors requires that he be known for more than school uniforms, Whitewater, gays in the military and bi-partisan welfare reform. This is a slim record indeed after four years. What about the next four years then.
We would like to remind our readers that presidents have substantial power as chief executive to shape the political agenda, even without new legislation. The President is the head of a large bureaucratic structure which is empowered to enforce already existing policies. He can appoint, with the consent of Congress, new and more activist top bureaucrats. EPA, the FDA, the FTC and many other federal agencies could produce major changes in American life by simply enforcing existing laws more fully and rigorously. The attack on the tobacco industry is a hint of what is possible. The liquor industry could be next. Antitrust could be much more vigilant in this era of mergers, and Al Gore's environmental agenda could be advanced by Clinton through vigorous prodding. All this is possible, even though conservative congressmen may complain or attempt to resist. The fact is that we really don't need much change in the laws to produce major changes in society.
No one really knows what President Clinton intends to happen in the next four years. However, he appears to have cleared the decks for action. Many of the cabinet members and advisers of his first term are gone or are leaving. This is a period when the President must choose the kind of appointees who will carry his second term administration forward. We want our readers to mark carefully the nature and character of key appointees, even those at lower levels of the federal establishment. CCQ will monitor these, as appropriate. Judicial appointments are also important, but these may be much more difficult to assess.
Meanwhile, we continue to hope that the Clinton Administration will explore the kind of policy initiatives we have suggested in these pages. A more cooperative less-adversarial relationship between business and government is politically fashionable and in tune with the public mood of the moment. However, the mood is reinforced by real problems in federal spending. More experimentation with different forms of cooperation may be needed in a slimmed-down government. The economies required by deficit reduction could fit a regime which was willing to explore fresh approaches and alternatives to regulation.
J.A.S.
© 1996 Corporate Conduct Quarterly