home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=92TT0773>
- <title>
- Apr. 13, 1992: The Political Interest
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992
- Apr. 13, 1992 Campus of the Future
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- NATION, Page 28
- THE POLITICAL INTEREST
- Two Visions, 21 Minutes Apart
- </hdr><body>
- <p>By Michael Kramer
- </p>
- <p> When it came time to deny the obvious, the cool and
- unflappable James Baker did so with a straight face and a
- practiced hint of sadness. Like a compassionate schoolteacher
- calmly instructing a roomful of dim students, the Secretary of
- State repeatedly insisted that election-year politics had
- nothing to do with last week's announcement of the
- Administration's plan to assist the former Soviet Union. "We've
- been working on it for months," Baker explained, adding that the
- President wanted his proposals made public before Boris Yeltsin
- faces a restless Congress of People's Deputies this week. That
- much was true, but the rest was nonsense.
- </p>
- <p> In fact, Pat Buchanan's mindless "America first" crusade
- had paralyzed Bush for months. Foreign policy, the President's
- passion and claim to fame, was stowed throughout the early
- primaries as Bush told Republican voters that his new first
- priority was repairing the domestic economy. Aiding Russia and
- the other republics became possible only when Buchanan's
- challenge waned after Bush's victories in Michigan and Illinois
- on March 17. But even then Bush was mute until Richard Nixon
- chastised the President for a "pathetically inadequate"
- nonresponse to Moscow's pleas for help. And even then nothing
- happened until the White House realized that last Wednesday
- morning Bill Clinton was about to unveil his scheme to assist
- the faltering former communists.
- </p>
- <p> When Bush finally spoke, confusion reigned. "The stakes,"
- the President soberly intoned, "are as high as any we have
- faced this century." But there was no prime-time, Oval Office
- address designed to rally a recession-weary nation to the cause--only a pressroom briefing at which the Administration's key
- players couldn't say how much their proposal would cost. It was
- not until eight hours later that Baker said the U.S.
- contribution to a $24 billion multinational plan of loans,
- grants and export credits would cost American taxpayers a
- relatively small "$3-plus billion" in new funding.
- </p>
- <p> Bush did manage to beat Clinton to the punch on Wednesday
- (by all of 21 minutes) but even that "victory" struck some of
- the President's more astute aides as hollow. "Either we should
- have beaten Clinton by at least one news cycle or we should
- have waited a few days," says a Bush political adviser. "As it
- was, all we did was pump up the opposition," par for the course
- for a campaign organization that has yet to get its bearings.
- </p>
- <p> The Bush and Clinton plans are strikingly similar, and
- both still see the planet as a dangerous place where the
- occasional use of American force will likely be necessary for
- decades to come. From there, their prescriptions for dealing
- with the post-cold war world depart radically. Bush regularly
- trumpets democracy's virtues, but his actions routinely serve
- order and stability. Following the gulf war, the U.S. virtually
- "owned" Kuwait, but Washington did little to ensure democracy's
- ascendancy in the emirate. Yugoslavia is disintegrating, but
- Bush has yet to recognize Slovenia and Croatia. The President
- clung to Mikhail Gorbachev to the end, and viewed Yeltsin as the
- problem rather than the solution even after Yeltsin won Russia's
- first democratic election. Clinton's views are exactly opposite.
- Democracy, he says, offers the best hope for stability, even if
- moving toward representative government generates short-term
- disorder.
- </p>
- <p> If one place best illuminates the differences in their
- approaches it is China, a nation the President professes to
- understand better than any of his advisers. To Clinton, Bush's
- "coddling" of China's aging leaders after the Tiananmen Square
- massacre is "unconscionable. There was a case for looking the
- other way when we needed China as a counterweight to Moscow,"
- says Clinton. "But there's no need to play the China card now
- when our opponents have thrown in their hand, no need to ignore
- China's spreading dangerous weapons technologies and its
- trampling of human rights. I would deny most-favored-nation
- status to China, impose trade sanctions and encourage the
- younger generation's democratic aspirations. They'll triumph
- someday, and we want to be seen as having been on their side
- from the beginning. Bush is behind the curve because he
- shortsightedly fears the turmoil of revolution."
- </p>
- <p> Clinton's muscularity has its limits. He speaks about
- using military force to protect citizens from the repressive
- acts of their rulers, but not in China, which is presumably too
- powerful for such an intrusion into its internal affairs--an
- accommodation to reality that could cause other odious dictators
- to acquire even more weaponry as a hedge against Clinton's
- wrath.
- </p>
- <p> Beyond a "realistic" appreciation of U.S. might, Clinton's
- preference for democracy and human rights has other holes. As
- he panders for Jewish votes by siding with an Israel "abused"
- by Washington, he has said nothing at all about Israel's
- maltreatment of its Palestinian population.
- </p>
- <p> While Clinton's desire to spread Western ideals is less
- than perfect, his rhetorical vision offers a stark contrast to
- Bush's actions. At some point in every general election campaign--and no matter the state of the economy--voters pause to
- consider the candidates' foreign and defense policies. When they
- do, they will have a clear choice--assuming of course that
- Clinton, as President, would actually inhale his vision.
- </p>
-
- </body></article>
- </text>
-
-