Breaking Through

By GEORGE J. CHURCH

Bill Clinton might not relish comparisons of himself with either Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagan. As a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, he demonstrated against Johnson's Vietnam policy, and he is now pushing a deficit-cutting program that specifically aims to stand Reaganomics on its ear. But as a bandwagon driver, Clinton is getting off to a start that either of his quick- off-the-mark predecessors might envy. Like them, he is capitalizing on a combination of shrewd planning, guile in bargaining and no little luck to put a stamp on policy that could be lasting.

Last week, for example, with the aid of last-minute phone calling and arm twisting from the White House, Clinton and his aides persuaded the House to whoop through by heavy margins not only his raise-taxes, cut-spending budget plan but also his program to first spend an additional $16.3 billion to give an immediate boost to the economy. That the heavy Democratic majority in the House would prevail over even united Republican opposition had never been in doubt. That Clinton's lieutenants could prevent damaging defections by conservative Democrats was nowhere near so certain. A number of conservatives echoed G.O.P. arguments that the stimulus was unnecessary because the economy is recovering well on its own and harmful because the package will at least temporarily swell the very deficits Clinton has made it his top priority to reduce.

Yet when the crunch came, most swallowed their doubts and supported the President. "It was a wonderful beginning," Clinton said, extolling the House votes as a "victory for ordinary Americans and for the proposition that this government can work for them again, that we don't have to be mired in gridlock, that we don't have to spend all of our time posturing and dividing and running for cover instead of moving into the future."

Simultaneously, Clinton got a stroke of luck when Supreme Court Justice Byron White, 75, on Friday announced that he will retire after the court's current term ends in early summer. White had not been one of the more memorable justices, but he had provided a swing vote that pushed the court in a conservative direction on such issues as abortion and church-state relations. His retirement will give Clinton an opportunity to appoint a Justice (New York Governor Mario Cuomo? Legal scholar Laurence Tribe?) who might help turn the court in a far more liberal direction. And the President has some time to ponder his choice and line up support. He need not have an appointee confirmed until the court's next term begins in October.

What makes Clinton's fast start the more remarkable is that it has been achieved without overwhelming public support. Quite the contrary: the latest Time/CNN poll conducted by Yankelovich Partners shows the President losing favor in some key respects during the past month. Overall, 53% of the respondents approve of Clinton's performance, down a statistically insignificant 3 points from February. But 49% of those polled now say he is doing a "poor job" of keeping campaign promises, vs. 39% who think he is doing a good job; a month earlier the split was 44% vs. 38% the other way. His economic plan in general is favored by 52%, down 10 points in a month. Only 38% believe he is doing a "good job" of reducing the deficit, also down 10 points, and 49% now think he wants to raise taxes "too much," up 14 points from February. Some of the reflexive back-the-President support Clinton garnered when he announced his deficit-cutting plans clearly has evaporated.

Some, but by no means all. Perhaps paradoxically, 65% of those surveyed think Clinton is doing a good job "providing strong leadership for the country," up 9 points from February. Apparently the hunger for a confident, % sure sense of direction from the top is so strong that for many people it overwhelms doubts about specific aspects: movement, in almost any direction, is better than policy gridlock. Clinton and his lieutenants have been astutely playing that feeling for all it is worth. Witness House majority leader Richard Gephardt's successful plea to his colleagues to vote for the Administration's budget resolution: "I think we have a President who has a plan. You may not agree with it, but I think he deserves a chance."

If the White House brandishing of as much popular support as it can claim is reminiscent of Reagan, its guileful combination of open blandishment and implied threat to win over potential opponents, or at least neutralize them, smacks powerfully of L.B.J. Take, for instance, Clinton's wooing of business, a constituency that Democratic Presidents do not ordinarily court. In the past two weeks, officials from nearly every Cabinet department have quietly fanned out to gauge the reaction of business constituents to Clinton's economic plans and have made lists of possible changes that might win some support. Says a White House official: "It's a twofer. By going after business, you blunt its opposition to the plan. And if you pick up its support, it's a bonus."

The pitch is simple: Play along with us, and we can make good things happen for you. Oppose us, and . . . well, watch out. Delivering the first part of the message, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen on March 12 welcomed into his airy office executives of seven major oil companies: Amoco, Ashland, Chevron, Conoco, Phillips, Shell and Unocal. "We're willing to adjust our fuel tax in ways that will help you," said Bentsen. He noted that his department had already promised to revise the way it proposed to collect a new energy tax to favor U.S. oil refiners over foreign competitors. He vowed to consider half a dozen other changes urged by oil and gas interests and encouraged his guests to fax him any further ideas that occurred to them. The quid pro quo: "We want your support for our economic program." Shell, at least, got the message quickly. A company statement endorsed "President Clinton in his effort to cut spending, reduce the deficit and encourage economic growth . . . We are prepared to continue working to fashion energy-tax policies that achieve the President's stated objectives."

And what of those businessmen who do not go along? Bentsen rather ominously noted that he had not invited "some members of the oil industry who had expressed public opposition" to Clinton's energy tax. He went no further, but another senior Administration official observes that "if they oppose us, every industry knows there is a price to pay." Several lobbyists say their clients are spooked by the prospect that unless they cooperate with the White House, they could suffer the fate of drug companies, whose stocks have been hammered in part because of criticism from the President and his wife about alleged price gouging.

No pressures of that kind, of course, can work with the Supreme Court: White's retirement might have happened, or not, regardless of anything Clinton did. Even so, the President played what hand he had astutely. White had been rumored to be about to retire at least twice in the past 10 years, so when the latest buzz of reports began, they were not taken especially seriously. The Justice, however, came to the Oval Office the week before last for what was described as a courtesy call. The President engaged him in a chat that a White House aide described as "warm. It was clear the President really admired him." Despite their differences over such issues as abortion rights? Yes, says the aide: they shared in particular a deep admiration for President Kennedy, who had inspired Clinton with a desire to go into politics when he was a young student and who appointed White to the court. White is the only member of this Supreme Court to be named by a Democratic President, and, says a senior court official, "he said he really did prefer, given the choice, to retire when there was ((another)) Democrat as President." Clinton somehow apparently managed to confirm White in that desire, even though the Justice must have known that the President is likely to appoint someone with a strikingly different legal approach (a standard Washington gag is that while White was named by Kennedy, he was philosophically Richard Nixon's first court appointee).

Can Clinton keep up his winning streak? To the extent that it reflects sheer luck, perhaps not; no gambler can keep rolling sevens. To the extent that his early success reflects political skill and adroitness -- well, maybe. The Senate, where Democrats lack the votes to break Republican filibusters, will surely modify some of his programs. It has already forced a weakening of the Administration's cherished "motor voter" bill; as passed by the Senate, the measure would still allow people to register to vote while receiving or renewing driver's licenses but no longer require registration forms to be passed out to those applying for welfare or unemployment compensation. With the help of the big, disciplined Democratic majority in the House, though, the President and his aides can probably fashion compromises that Senate Republicans could block only at the cost of painting themselves as stubborn obstructionists. Given the feel for the popular mood and the adeptness at defusing or co-opting opposition that he has already displayed, the President can probably win the opportunity to put his programs into practice. Thereafter, the fate of his Administration should be decided by the stern pragmatic test: Do those programs work?

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 800 Americans taken for TIME/CNN on March 18 by Yankelovich Partners Inc. Sampling error is plus or minus 3.5%.

CAPTION: Is Clinton doing a good job?

Will the spending cuts and tax increases Clinton has proposed have a big effect on you?

With reporting by Michael Duffy and Julie Johnson/Washington