In politics, policy and economics, it is important to understand how both sides think about the issues. Otherwise, it's pretty darn tough to persuade policymakers to make decisions that actually help the economy.

With this in mind, I attended a conference at Hofstra University on Long Island that assessed the presidency of Bill Clinton. It was a fascinating three-day event - from Thursday, November 10 to Saturday, November 12 -- which featured more than 40 different sessions on seemingly all aspects of the Clinton White House years, including a speech delivered by the former president on Thursday.

For a conservative, free-market economist, however, this was no easy task, as the conference often verged on cheerleading rather than sober, balanced assessment. In fact, listening to many speakers from morning until night over three days, I failed to hear one articulate conservative or free market critique. I've been to several of Hofstra's eleven presidential conferences, and while each gathering largely tilted towards those who favored each White House, this one seemed to be the least balanced.

It's worth noting the assessments offered on some key topics that remain hot in today's policy debate.

Most obvious with the Clinton White House would be health care. A panel titled "The Politics and Economics of Health Care Reform" offered evaluations that were all favorable on the idea of more government involvement in health care. The only real disputes were over why the Clinton plan failed and the most appropriate tack taken to get to a government-run system. This, of course, reflected the debate early on within the Clinton administration itself. Cases were made for so-called "managed competition" and even price controls.

Ira Magaziner, who worked with Hillary Clinton on the administration's proposal, bemoaned the failure of Clinton Care as a setback with significant consequences. He noted that other developed nations have government-controlled systems.

Unfortunately, no one offered a market perspective. It was simply assumed that more government in health care is better, despite the inferior care offered under socialized systems around the world.

However, Magaziner inadvertently provided a clue as to what to expect under nationalized health care. He noted that as the Clinton plan was being cobbled together, almost 1,200 separate interest groups lobbied the effort. That included those arguing that dance therapy be covered. That's what happens when health care is politicized, and why costs skyrocket under government.

Unfortunately, one has to note that the defeat of Clinton Care by the end of 1994 was not exactly a major setback for big government health care. Obviously, there have been positive steps on the pro-market front, led largely by Republicans, such as tax-free health savings accounts and tax parity for the self-employed for health insurance. But one has to wonder how many elected officials have truly learned the lessons of Clinton Care. After all, on other fronts, the effort for more government involvement continues but at a much slower pace, including the persistence of silly notions like managed competition.

Meanwhile, after some clear positives on the tax front after Clinton -- including reductions in personal income, capital gains, dividend and death tax rates -- one detects some dangerous traces of Clintonian arguments returning to the debate.

Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin argued that the 1993 Clinton tax hikes were just what the doctor ordered for the economy. He equated fiscal discipline with tax increases, which, according to Rubin, led to smaller budget deficits and then surpluses, lower interest rates, and better economic growth. Sounds nice, except for the fact that history shows absolutely no relationship between U.S. federal budget deficits and the level of interest rates. The argument also ignores the obvious economic negatives inflicted by higher taxes, and the fact that the U.S. economy continued to under-perform after the Clinton tax increase. Growth only picked up significantly in 1997, which happened to coincide with a major capital gains tax cut.

Today, many Democrats and some Republicans worry about budget deficits, and claim they impact interest rates. And as was the case with the Clinton White House, much current talk about reducing budget deficits is focused on raising taxes (namely by not making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent) rather than seriously reducing government spending. In fact, federal government spending in the post-Clinton years actually has accelerated at a drastic pace.

Antitrust regulation also got attention at the Clinton conference. Again, though, there were no voices on the panel challenging the Clinton administration's over-zealousness, nor was any serious thought given to the limits of antitrust in our innovative economy. Instead, there was general approval voiced for such misguided ventures as pursuing Microsoft as a monopolist.

Then there was environmental policy. Clinton's laundry-list, rambling speech came across as a shameless, insecure defense of his administration. Among the lengthy successes he cited was the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. He declared: "I'll always be glad I tried on climate change." Of course, the Kyoto treaty was an unabashed failure. He never sent the treaty to the Senate for approval because he knew it would go down to defeat, and his successor, President George W. Bush, wisely abandoned it, as its implementation would have done nothing for the environment while at the same time jacking up energy costs and hurting U.S. competitiveness.

Again, though, the debate over so-called global warming persists, and ideas are regularly floated in Congress that are bankrupt from both environmental and economic points of view.

In the end, the clear positive on the policy front for the economy during the Clinton years was trade. Both Clinton and Rubin highlighted that in their respective speeches. To his credit, President Clinton was more free trade oriented than many of his fellow Democrats. A clear success was passage of NAFTA. Subsequently, President Bush has pushed ahead with a relatively strong pro-trade agenda. Unfortunately, though, the benefits of more open trade - which is one of the very few issues upon which most economists agree - often becomes a tough vote on Capitol Hill.

So, many of the policy lessons from the Clinton years - both good and bad - have yet to be fully learned. And the presidential conference at Hofstra University offered little illumination.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This column may be reprinted with appropriate credit.

_______
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.