On the recordAugust 24, 1994
I think that's right. I agree with that. I think--one of the things that Al From said to me with the Democratic Leadership Council--not in this memo, but I think it captures in one sentence the dilemma I face as President in trying to move into a post-cold-war world and take this country into the 21st century with a strategy for growth and opportunity, where the Government is not either just sitting on the sidelines or trying to solve problems but is being a partner with the American people--he said we are basically back in 1965 in what we want Government to do, but we're about in 1980 in what we trust Government to do, that is, the year President Reagan was elected. So people have high aspirations for what they wish us to do, but they don't trust us to do much. And they're afraid we'll mess it up. So it's easy to derail almost any initiative by saying, well, this thing is wrong with it or that or the other thing. We are a people of--a democratic government requires some flexibility and compromise and people working together. And somehow, we've got to find a way to recreate that spirit. Now, it happened on the NAFTA debate, and it happened last week on crime in the House. It was wonderful to see these Democrats and Republicans sitting down together, cutting unnecessary spending, redirecting the programs, making sure we only told the American people we were going to spend what we could, in fact, spend from reducing the size of the Federal Government. That's what we need more of, that sort of thing. Anticrime Legislation Mr. Burns. George Stephanopoulos answered this question. I guess this is a test as to whether he's really reflecting what you believe as President of the United States. Why not break out the component parts of the crime bill? You and I both know that many of those components would fly through the Congress with no opposition--more police, more prisons. You might even win the assault weapons ban issue. Why doggedly say it's all or nothing?
Source
govinfo.gov
