I am beginning to see a pattern.
President Bush talks about restoring integrity to the White House, a not so subtle reference to the Clinton sex and fundraising scandals.
Secretary of State Colin Powell warns about being overly fixated on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, a not so subtle reference to former President Clinton’s dogged efforts to promote lasting stability in the oil-rich Middle East before leaving office.
And Michael Powell, new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and the secretary of state’s son, pooh poohs the `Digital Divide’ and says it’s none of his business if President Bush wants to overhaul a schools and libraries Internet program supported by GOP and Democratic lawmakers alike. In fact, at his first news briefing two weeks ago, Powell suggested, in a way of speaking, it was presumptuous to even have an agenda at a time when fast-moving technology and market developments are dictating the parameters of the New Economy.
In other words, Powell wanted everyone to know he was not going to be an activist FCC chairman, like the two Democrats-Bill Kennard and Reed Hundt-who went before him.
So what we appear to have here is an administration seeking to define itself by what it isn’t. Whatever way the Clinton administration did it is not the way the Bush administration will do it. Better to be cautious, humble and as unClintonlike as possible. The humility hubris is a little much.
The only logical explanation for this strategy is a belief by Bush political advisers that the American people-dragged through one Clinton scandal after another-will undoubtedly embrace anything in the new administration that does not smell of Clinton. But such a political tack is doomed for failure.
Truth is, while the American public grew sick and weary of Bill and Hillary, many Clinton administration policies had strong public support. Clinton himself, despite everything, had strong support. He fostered a strong economy, in part because he and former Vice Gore knew technology investments pay big dividends. Clinton advocated for consumers, and he had a special bond with African Americans and other groups that face discrimination. The latter is particularly important since race continues to be the fragile fault line in American society. For sure, the telecom industry is not representative of America’s diverse makeup.
Being a Clinton contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian is a loser, quite frankly. Leadership ultimately is about what you stand for.
What does FCC Chairman Powell stand for?
We know he likes free markets and is big on FCC reform, which just happens to top the agendas of the wireless industry and GOP telecom lawmakers. He thinks the telecom act is working, too.
What else? Powell, intelligent and thoughtful, suggested the FCC’s role in these changing times should simply be limited to reacting to events. On the other hand, it could get you boxed into a corner.
Powell said uncertainty is probably the worst of all worlds for industry and Wall Street. The wireless industry, which stands at the crossroads of the Internet Age, would no doubt agree. Seems no one is certain of what Powell’s about. Of that, I’m certain.
