President pays for straying

Power shift.

President Clinton's 45% approval rating is lower than any president at this stage of his presidency. His 44% disapproval rating is unprecedented for a new president. Most telling, nearly three out of four Americans now think the country is going in the wrong direction.

While moderate Democrats rebel, most national media pundits are in denial. Some say Clinton's problems are a result of bad tactics. With a little time and fine tuning, he will get it right.

Others blame the victim. They say the American people demand instant gratification and are rejecting the hard choices presented by the president's economic plan. To pretend that it's a "hard choice" for a Democratic president to increase taxes, increase spending and defer deficit reduction is a pathetic apologia.

It's time to face the facts. Barring a major shift back to the principles and policies of the Democratic Leadership Council -- principles of growth, opportunity and individual responsibility that got Bill Clinton elected -- the Clinton administration is going nowhere. Polls are going south not because of bad tactics, but because the president has shifted ground on gut economic and social issues that got him elected, and the American people aren't stupid.

Clinton said he would stimulate the economy and create jobs, but his economic package will kill jobs. That's the verdict of the Congressional Budget Office and private analysts alike. Clinton said he would get the budget under control, but his planned four-year deficit is larger than Reagan I or Reagan II or Bush -- and that doesn't count the billions for health-care reform.

Clinton is in trouble because his economic and social policies are a direct assault on middle-class pocketbooks and middle-class sensibilities. And his conduct along the way has resurrected the "Slick Willie" image -- capped off by the farce of a $200 haircut by Christopher of Beverly Hills for a guy who says, "I feel your pain."

Washington insiders say we can't afford another failed presidency. "Why not?" say ordinary people.

When a president wants to lead the country into an economic sinkhole by piling on more spending and imposing unnecessary taxes on energy and payrolls, a failed presidency might be in the public interest.

When a president with no experience in defense o. foreign policy launches a frontal assault on the military by promoting a gay rights agenda without prior consultation, and subsequently risks the nation's credibility by start-and-stop policies in the Balkans, maybe a failed presidency will minimize the damage he can do in the future.

When a president plays politics with the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement, inviting political upheaval among America's 80 million Mexican neighbors, then maybe other centers of power should stand up.

America would do better with an effective and visionary leader. But we can muddle through without one. Leadership by the Clinton administration may not be a four-year affair. It may last less-than two, if a moderate, bipartisan coalition in Congress takes the reins, building on momentum it started last week. After all, 435 members of Congress and more than 30 senators must face the voters in November 1994. Incumbents aren't stupid.