- The Washington Times - Sunday, October 2, 2011


I never thought it would come to this. I never imagined a time post-2000 when I would actually long for a return to the past. But here we are, facing a recession as deep and even longer than the one in the early 1990s. A recession that ushered in none other than “the Comeback Kid” - President William Jefferson Clinton.

Yes, the United States enjoyed years of growing surpluses during the Clinton presidency - many of which could be attributed equally to the Republican-led Congress - but pair them together, and its easy to see why the country could use another Bill Clinton in place of the current Oval Office occupant. Here’s why:

Trade policy

I lead with this because it’s easily the quickest thing President Obama could accomplish to help set the economy on the right footing again. Mr. Clinton bucked the powerful labor unions and even some of the most liberal wings in his party to push through Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) during his tenure. For the first time, the administration had the power to negotiate trade deals and send them to the Congress for an up-or-down vote. TPA was a signature legislative jewel in the crown of the Clinton presidency, and it took none other than Mr. Clinton himself to put his own political capital on the line to marshal it through the Congress.

Mr. Clinton was a master of acknowledging the concerns of labor rights yet channeling them into meaningful legislation. It was not enough to just fight and lose the battles. Mr. Clinton needed to win. And when it came to trade, and the United States continued dominance on the world commercial scene, he was one of the best trade envoys for the nation.

Mr. Obama would do well to emulate Mr. Clinton’s behavior in this regard, especially since many in Congress have teed up three free-trade agreements (South Korea, Panama and Colombia) for him to carry over the finish line.


Mr. Clinton proved bipartisanship was more art than science. Here again, he didn’t always practice it, but when he did, it was a thing of beauty, and it worked.

Remember “triangulation”? The practice of leveraging support from the opposition party - or even a smaller minority in your own - to move legislation or force compromise was sheer Clintonian. Frankly, that’s how consensus-building should work in this town. It’s one of the few ways to move public policy, and chances are it yields positive outcomes. We’ve entered an era where 60 votes is the goal, when supermajorities are the only numbers that matter, and yet it’s evident they are nearly impossible to secure.

Mr. Clinton would never have endorsed a supercommittee for debt reduction. Why? Because he wouldn’t have been a part of the solution. His ego was larger than that. Plus, the numbers were decreased, meaning hed have fewer elected leaders to motivate or coax. Sure, the Clinton White House had plenty of special commissions. But one that dealt with such an important topic would never have been relegated to just 12 individuals.

Just last week, however, the Obama administration has signaled a shift left, away from the middle, where compromise is forged and consensus is found. That does not bode well for a bipartisan solution when clearly one is needed.

‘Era of big government over’

Mr. Obama knows the era of big government in 2011 is over. It took the tea party to prove to him this fact. Now, he must repeat the steps of Mr. Clinton and work with Republicans to enact meaningful, center-right policies that reflect the will of this nation. Resistance is futile. Just look at the imminent loss of the Democrat-controlled Senate in 2012, and perhaps even the loss of Mr. Obama’s own job if he’s not careful in these upcoming months.

Armstrong Williams, author of the new book, “Reawakening Virtues,” is on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside. Read his content on RightSideWire.com.



Click to Read More

Click to Hide