There’s the glimmer of a strategy here for Bill Clinton: there may be salvation for him in the states. The governors have been the most creative players in American politics for the past 20 years. They tend to be more moderate, pragmatic, frugal – and less ideological – than legislators (especially those who reside in Washington). The former governor of Arkansas understands this well; he is, one hears, nostalgic for the bipartisan collegiality of the National Governors’ Association. He might well consider making an ““executive’’ alliance with his old colleagues now – against the new congressional leadership. Specifically, he could offer the governors as much control as they want over as many federal programs as possible – even more than the federal Republicans are already proposing. He could plausibly argue that he was giving the public what it voted for – a smaller federal bureaucracy – while pursuing a policy course likely to be seen as profoundly moderate in the new American political spectrum.
He could start with welfare reform. Last week the congressional Republicans proposed a very tough new welfare plan that would – among other things – deny assistance to unwed mothers under the age of 18 and to legal immigrants; set a five-year lifetime limit on assistance, and perhaps even make some payments discretionary, rather than automatic. The president could fight the Republican plan – and probably lose in yet another ugly, endless legislative struggle; or, at best, ““win’’ a muddled compromise, while seeming soft in the process (at a moment when public sympathy for welfare mothers is not running at historic highs). No doubt, the congressional Republicans – especially the severe ideologues among them – would love to see Bill Clinton spend the next year defending the rights of the undeserving poor.
But what if the president outflanked the new GOP leadership by offering the following proposal: the end of all federal wel-fare guidelines? Each state would be free to design its own program. Washington would continue to provide money – though, perhaps, less of it (as the GOP governors themselves suggested) and increasing only at the rate of inflation. The federal government could also provide a national system to track down deadbeat dads (the father’s name should be required of any mother seeking public support). But that’s all. Clinton would be gambling that the governors would create a system more moderate than anything the GOP ideologues in the Congress might impose. My guess is, they would. Certainly they’d be more cautious about the drastic sorts of conservative social-engineering schemes now being proposed (many of which should be considered, but slowly; carefully).
The elegance of such a strategy – call it Radical Devolution – is that it is at once philosophically conservative and operationally pragmatic, and it would allow the president to regain the political initiative. ““If Clinton did that, a lot of us would have to support him,’’ says one prominent conservative. ““Even Newt would be forced to go along within two or three days.''
Might Clinton risk it? Some aides think the president is already well along the road, having granted all sorts of ““waivers’’ from federal regulations for state experiments in welfare and other programs during his first two years. (A policy of aggressive ““waivering’’ does sound profoundly Clintonian, somehow.) ““The president is an ardent devolutionist,’’ says one adviser. The trouble is, his wife may not be. Certainly, there are more than a few liberal paternalists populating this administration. Their ideological conceit – we know better, we can do it better – has driven the centralization of power in Washington for 60 years. It may have had some validity during the economic emergency of the 1930s and the racial liberation of the 1960s (Southern states did need to be brought into this century) – but no more. The arrogant creakiness of federal policymaking was never more apparent than in the difference between Rodham-MagazinerCare and TennCare.
Ironically, the Republicans seem to have taken the capital at a moment when there’s little tolerance for any new federal projects, even ““conservative’’ ones: ““I don’t think a Republican fix of welfare in Washington, D.C., is any better than a Democratic fix,’’ says former education secretary (and Tennessee governor) Lamar Alexander, who has been running the most creative GOP pre-presidential campaign. Alexander is onto something: the political ““center’’ isn’t to be found in Washington anymore. It, too, has devolved.
