The Political Interest Back to the War Room

By Michael Kramer

Late on Election Day last week, the message magicians who had brilliantly guided Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign could hardly contain themselves. James Carville and Paul Begala predicted a "twofer": Governor Jim Florio, their horse in New Jersey, would coast to re-election, and politicians everywhere would learn the Big Lesson. "Florio shows you can do the hard things that have to be done ((like raising taxes)) and defeat an opponent who offers feel-good stuff ((like tax cuts))," Carville crowed.

Reality hit within hours. The race that would make the case for activist government was lost. Carville and Begala were almost too depressed to put their spin on things. "I couldn't look Florio in the eye last night," Carville began. "But," he added, pitching forward cheerfully, "today's the first time in a while that I read the business section before the front page." Sure enough, the "real stuff," as Carville called it, was encouraging: housing starts, manufacturing, productivity and construction spending were all up. Perhaps the man who had won the White House by promising to focus his laser on the economy would be safe in 1996 after all. "Not to worry," Carville boomed cheerfully, seeming to speak mostly to himself.

Begala, the more sober of the duo -- which isn't saying much, since it's hard to imagine anyone more crazed than Carville -- saw lots to worry about. In fact, in the battle about whether the '93 results mean everything (the Republican view) or nothing (the President's), Begala is a virtual heretic. "What these Republican victories mean is that the folks in Congress, who * are risk averse to start with, are now going to be more skittish than ever," Begala said. "And that includes most Democrats. The fear of change is being fed, big time."

Nonetheless, Begala urges pressing ahead. "The President has raised expectations pretty high," he concedes. "He has to deliver now, and it's in the Democratic Congress's interest to help him." Why? "Because people want change even though it scares them. We should pass all kinds of stuff and then go to the voters and say, 'Hey, some of it may not work, but we're finally doing things. We've got this baby humming now, and that's what's important.' "

Begala's argument makes a virtue of necessity: retreating to passivity would doom Clinton for sure. But the polls describe a suspicious electorate that views the President's call for "more efficient" government as a cover for bigger government and more spending, which the voters very definitely do not want.

The greatest trouble for Clinton is a robust Republican Party, especially an ideologically cohesive, naysaying congressional delegation capable of staying the President's innate activism. "History says we'll gain about three Senate and 20 House seats in '94," says former G.O.P. national chairman Rich Bond. "Now I think we'll do even better. The big break for us in the latest results is going to come in candidate recruitment. These days, too few good people want to expose themselves to the scrutiny that comes when you run for office. That's magnified when running looks like suicide; no one wants to lose and be cut up at the same time. Clinton's perceived weakness and these victories can overcome that hesitation. Better people will take a chance and better candidates mean more wins."

To which Paul Begala merely sighs in agreement. "I'm beginning to feel like General Custer in that old joke -- where he looks up kind of startled and says, 'Where the hell did all these Indians come from?' Only our Indians are Republicans -- and now they'll be even less inclined to listen when we urge them to put country before party." Which means that from here on, it's all- out war.