MISSOURI COMMENTARY: ANOTHER TRUMAN ON THE HORIZON?

An incumbent president, trailing in the polls, might pray that he be the second coming of Harry Truman. Jimmy Carter and George Bush didn't so pray, despite the polling numbers, because they were confident they would win -- with or without divine intervention. Bill Clinton finds himself in a situation most resembling Harry Truman's plight as the latter approached the 1948 election.

Truman was less than fully received by the citizenry when he became president on the death of the most colossal political figure of the 20th Century, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Clinton with 43 percent of the vote was less than fully received when he was inaugurated.

Truman had a halting, uncertain time in office in his first two years of the presidency. So too Clinton. Truman had some people of dubious talent around his administration -- "cronies" they were called -- who caused him embarrassment. So too Clinton. Truman was demeaned in the press of "dealing with large issues in a small scale way." Clinton was sometimes challenged as being not big enough to catapult from Little Rock to Washington.

Truman had a secretary of state deemed to be less than stellar, James Byrnes. Clinton's secretary of state, Warren Christopher, is a subject of current controversy.

The trouble with Truman, historian David McCullough writes, "was not that he spoke his mind too often or too candidly, but that he wanted too much to please, to get along with everybody, agree with everybody," So too with Clinton.

The Republicans won the 1946 mid-term elections capturing both houses of Congress: House 246R-188D; Senate 51R-45D. The Republicans won the 1994 mid-term elections capturing both houses of Congress: House 229R-205D-1I; Senate 57R-43D.

With a burst of energy and self-confidence, Truman evolved as a completely different man in the next two years of his presidency. Instead of "trying to much to please, to get along with everybody, agree with everybody," Truman decided to be himself. He would tell the country what he believed in. He would say it directly. He would not equivocate. If the American people liked it, fine. If they didn't like it, fine too -- he would go back to Independence and live a happy life.

Truman became the master of the office of president, instead of being a captive of the office. The things for which his presidency are most favorably remembered were all accomplished in 1947 and 1948.

Having dumped his inept "crony," James Byrnes, as Secretary of State and having appointed a national icon, General George Marshall, to that office, Truman embarked on a discernible and certain foreign policy. The Marshall Plan rescued Europe. It really was the Truman Plan, but he purposely put Marshall's name on it to insure its passage in Congress.

The Truman Doctrine in Greece and Turkey came forth instantaneously when bankrupt Great Britain decided to bail out on international obligations it could no longer sustain. Truman, facing dissension within his own administration, boldly recognized the new state of Israel. the Berlin crisis hit, and Truman didn't blink -- even for a moment.

Truman's policy on civil rights paved the way for all the presidents who followed. He integrated the Armed Forces without hesitation, a decision in its time and day that was certainly more controversial than the "gays in the military" issue today. He sent challenging civil rights legislation to the Congress. He made a speech at the Lincoln Memorial, of which the head of the NAACP, Walter White, wrote: "I did not believe that Truman's speech possessed the literacy quality of Lincoln's speech, but in some respect it had been a more courageous one in its specific condemnation of evils based upon race prejudices ... and its call for immediate action against them."

It is in Bill Clinton's hands to determine if he is the next Truman. Of course, times, circumstances, issues, attitudes are light years different contrasting 1947-48 with 1995-96. Our nation's willingness to respond to international crises is much different in the quasi-isolationism of the post Cold War. Our nation's willingness to sacrifice, our sense of sharing, our sense of fundamental decency are all different.

Challenging the isolationists and those seeking to dismantle the New Deal and its progeny may defy the current polling trends and conventional wisdom. No doubt that is what Truman would have done. He would have made such a challenge with vigor and an abiding sense of mission. He would have hugely enjoyed the undertaking.

~Tom Eagleton is a former U.S. senator from Missouri and a columnist for the Pulitzer Publishing Co.