As 1986 drew to a close, I took a quick trip to Taiwan to address the Tenth Annual Conference of Taiwanese and American Leaders about our future relations. The Taiwanese were good customers for Arkansas soybeans and a wide variety of our manufactured products, from electric motors to parking meters. But America’s trade deficit was large and growing, and four in ten American workers had suffered declining incomes in the previous five years. Speaking for all the governors, I acknowledged America’s responsibility to cut our deficit to bring down interest rates and increase domestic demand, to restructure and reduce the debt of our Latin American neighbors, to relax export controls on hightechnology products, and to improve the education and productivity of our workforce. Then I challenged the Taiwanese to reduce trade barriers and invest more of their huge cash reserves in America. It was my first speech on global economics to a foreign audience. Making it forced me to sort out exactly what I thought should be done and who should do it.
By the end of 1986, I had formed some basic convictions about the nature of the modern world, which later developed into the so-called New Democrat philosophy that was the backbone of my 1992
campaign for President. I outlined them in a speech to the year-end management meeting of Gannett, the newspaper chain that had just bought the
. . . these are the new rules that I believe should provide the framework within which we make policy today:
(1) Change may be the only constant in today’s American economy. I was at an old country church celebration in Arkansas about three months ago to celebrate its 150th anniversary. There were about seventy-five people there, all packed in this small wooden church. After the service, we went out under the pine trees to have a potluck lunch, and I found myself talking to an old man who was obviously quite bright. Finally, I asked him, “Mister, how old are you?” He said, “I’m eighty-two.” “When did you join this church?” “Nineteen sixteen,” he said. “If you had to say in one sentence, what is the difference between our state now and in 1916?” He was quiet for a moment, then said, “Governor, that’s pretty easy. In 1916 when I got up in the morning I knew what was going to happen, but when I get up in the morning now, I don’t have any idea.” That is about as good a one-sentence explanation about what has happened to America as Lester Thurow could give. . . .
(2) Human capital is probably more important than physical capital now. . . . (3) A more constructive partnership between business and government is far more important than the dominance of either.
(4) As we try to solve problems which arise out of the internationalization of American life and the changes in our own population, cooperation in every area is far more important than conflict. . . . We have to share responsibilities and opportunities—we’re going up or down together. (5) Waste is going to be punished . . . it appears to me that we are spending billions of dollars of investment capital increasing the debt of corporations without increasing their productivity. More debt should mean increased productivity, growth, and profitability. Now it means, too often, less employment, less investment for research and development, and forced restructuring to service nonproductive debt. . . .
(6) A strong America requires a resurgent sense of community, a strong sense of mutual obligations, and a conviction that we cannot pursue our individual interests independent of the needs of our fellow citizens. . . .
If we want to keep the American dream alive for our own people and preserve America’s role in the world, we must accept the new rules of successful economic, political, and social life. And we must act on them.
Over the next five years, I would refine my analysis of globalization and interdependence and propose more initiatives to respond to them, juggling as best I could my desire to be a good governor and to have a positive impact on national policy.
In 1987, my agenda for the legislative session, “Good Beginnings, Good Schools, Good Jobs,” was consistent with the work I was doing with the National Governors Association under the theme “Making America Work.” In addition to recommendations that built on our previous efforts in education and economic development, I asked the legislature to help me get the growing number of poor children off to a good start in life by increasing health-care coverage for poor mothers and children, starting with prenatal care in order to lower the infant-mortality rate and reduce avoidable damage to newborns; to increase parenting education for mothers of at-risk children; to provide more special education in early childhood to kids with learning problems; to increase the availability of affordable child care; and to strengthen child-support enforcement.