That's the hot new word for the new administration, i.e., "The Billary Clinton Administration," to be precise about two-for-one power sharing in the White House. Many of you are calling to share your distress at the Politically Correct social radicalism unfolding in our nation's capital, wondering how we can be keeping our cool and remaining bullish about the economy and financial markets. First, there is nothing we can do about the wacko social radicalism now spending itself at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue after twelve years on the shelf. This is the price the American people have to pay for getting rid of George Bush. Billary never kept it a secret, and the electorate knew full well that this is what they were going to get. Gays and lesbians in the military. Mr. Ozone. An affirmative action Cabinet. Deism. Pro choice. Folk songs and Hollywood. On September 24, 1991, I wrote "A Democratic White House Scenario," in which I presented a strategy by which a Democrat could defeat the President, who was then at the peak of his Desert Storm popularity and supposedly unbeatable. I argued that a Democratic candidate need only be committed to non-inflationary, entrepreneurial capitalism to win. The American people would permit him to push the gay/les liberal social agenda and name soft lefties to the Supreme Court as long as he got the economy on track. As much as I personally dislike the liberal social agenda, and as much as I believe the American people dislike it, I could see no alternative given the obtuseness of the Bush Administration and the likelihood that it would get worse, not better, the second time around. The supply-side social conservatives have been without an effective leader since the departure of Ronald Reagan, and there was none in sight for 1992. Ross Perot seemed for a moment to embody the requisite elements; grass-roots America went bananas before it turned out too good to be true. So here we are. We have to make the best of it and hope, along with the American people, that Hillary will permit Bill to have the last word on economic policy, and Congress will balk at the wildest of the social radicalism threatening to pounce. (A Bureau of Children's Rights? A Department of Gay & Lesbian Affairs, with Cabinet rank?)
We stipulate that the social radicals, who are now invited regularly to the smoke-free White House dining rooms, would prefer a communized economic policy. But they know it is not in the cards, what with the recent experience in Russia and China. It is our assessment that they will permit Billary to bring sufficient capitalism into the system to allow for economic growth. If it is not as dynamic as we would like to see, it should still keep us afloat until new leaders arrive in 1996. I'm headed for Washington tomorrow, with several appointments scheduled to explore the Billary situation. I shall refine these observations upon my return.