A "news analysis" in the national section of today's New York Times runs under the introductory line "The Context." The article discusses the question of mandates, considering the examples of President Clinton, President George W. Bush, and the Senate Democrats. "Senate Democrats might be mindful of Mr. Bush's recent experience: He won the election by barely a hair (some Democrats argue that he did not win at all) but governed as if he had a mandate from the voters. That approach has turned off some moderate voters, polls show, and certainly helped drive Senator James M. Jeffords from the Republican Party."
The article goes on to assert that "The no-mandate chorus is something of a staple in American politics. The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal declared at the start of Bill Clinton's presidency that he was behaving more like a liberal than the moderate he campaigned as. 'The Clinton White House still seems to think that its victory was a mandate for updating a 1965-66 legislative agenda for an MTV electorate,' said one Journal editorial. Perhaps Mr. Clinton should have paid more attention to such critiques. It was only after the Democrats lost Congress in 1994 that he restored himself politically by trying to make amends with Republicans -- and refashioning himself as a moderate."
This is pretty half-baked "analysis." Mr. Clinton's mandate for his presidential agenda was questionable because he abandoned so many of his campaign promises -- from his middle-class tax cut, which turned into a tax increase, to his promise to end welfare as we know it, which was put on the back burner until Republicans took over Congress. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, has followed through on his campaign promises. If Mr. Bush has exceeded his mandate, it hasn't been, as the Times suggests, by being too conservative in pursuing tax cuts, missile defense and education reform, but by being too liberal in abandoning school vouchers and shrinking the tax cut. If Mr. Bush had abandoned the tax cut, missile defense and education reform entirely, the Times would probably still be criticizing him -- not for exceeding his mandate, but for breaking his campaign promises or for failing to get his agenda passed. The other questionable aspect of this "analysis" is the notion that Clinton restored himself politically "by trying to make amends with Republicans -- and refashioning himself as a moderate." While Mr. Clinton did bring in Dick Morris and move to the right by claiming credit for some accomplishments of the Republican Congress, his "amends" with the Republicans included shutting down the government rather than reaching a budget agreement with them. The "amends" also included airing demagogic television ads accusing the Republicans of trying to cut your grandmother's Medicare. That's some "context" that this piece on "The Context" seems to have left out.
Some Calm: The off-lead headline on the front page of this morning's New York Times says, "C.I.A. Chief Going to Israel In Effort to Maintain Calm." Calm? A suicide bomb in Tel Aviv Friday night killed 20 people. That's calm? The text of the article makes clear that the reference is to "three days of relative quiet since Yasir Arafat ordered Palestinian security forces to prevent further violence." But the headline doesn't say "relative quiet," it just says "calm." Relative to a suicide bombing that kills 20 people, a lot of things can be considered quiet. But it seems a bit of a stretch to call the current situation in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza "calm." As the Times itself reports today, "There were clashes today between Palestinian demonstrators and Israeli troops near Ramallah, at least one roadside bomb and a car explosion that injured an active member of Mr. Arafat's Fatah organization." That's "calm"?
No Disclosure: The arts section of today's New York Times carries a review of a book by Michael Pollan. Amazon.com and the cover of another book by Mr. Pollan identify him as a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine. But the book review in today's Times never mentions that he has, or had, a formal connection to the newspaper. The Sunday Times Book Review made the same omission, as Sunday's Smartertimes.com noted.