MISSOURI COMMENTERY: YOU SIMPLY NEED TO WAIT AWHILE

The line seemed to be drawn. It was vintage Republican dogma vs. vintage Democratic dogma. It was the politics of fiscal prudence vs. the politics of meeting the needs of the people.

As part of the Contract With America, the Republicans promised to balance the budget in seven years -- by 2002. With Social Security, defense and interest on the debt declared untouchable by the GOP, balancing the budget meant draconian reductions in a wide array of social programs including education, welfare and health care, especially Medicare and Medicaid.

The Democrats cried foul. The date of 2002 was "arbitrary." The cuts were too deep. Too many people would be adversely affected. When the press said that "Democrats" were attacking the Republican plan, the word "Democrats" was all inclusive. The president, vice president and all of the party's congressional leaders presented a united front in opposition.

Then the president abruptly shifted gears. On the advice of the vice president and his new Republican adviser, Dick Morris, Clinton decided he could not play the old-fashioned social-welfare-spend game. He was, after all, a New Democrat. He wasn't going to sit in the Oval office and veto a whole bunch of appropriations bills and bring the government to a halt. he couldn't be a blatant obstructionist. He could read last year's election message. Playing the role of the Democratic ghost of Christmas past was not Clinton's idea of a successful game plant to get re-elected next year.

The president jumped off the train to the dismay of his own party's congressional leaders. Clinton proposed a 10 year balance-the-budget plan with cuts less abrasive than the Republican proposal. He distanced himself from the congressional Democrats who, for the most part, are left advocating the old time religion of leaving Medicare and Medicaid inviolate, which will leave the budget out of balance indefinitely.

In political terms, the Democratic Party currently has two messages to take to the voters in 1996. the Democratic president now says we must balance the budget and we can do it without being as harsh as Newt Gingrich. The Democratic voices in Congress, on the other hand, say we must protect the programs that we think are vital for the country -- education and health care -- and that balancing the budget is a vague goal to be postponed to the future.

Although by no means as cataclysmic, Clinton's split with his congressional allies is similar to the rift in the British Labor Party in the early 1930s. Ramsey MacDonald, the Labor prime minister, was floundering in the widespread economic depression that was beyond his understanding. His own party was split into at least three camps. One group wanted to plunge ahead with the Labor manifesto of more government control of the economy. A smaller group thought Lord John Maynard Keynes was right: In a depression, spend money to stimulate the private sector and don't worry about deficits. The smallest group felt the Conservatives were right: Seek a balanced budget at all times, at any cost.

MacDonald went for the balance-the-budget concept and split off from his own party taking a few MPs with him. He joined a National Coalition with the Conservatives and Liberals. He continued on as prime minister, but with the Conservatives setting the economic policy agenda. His own Labor Party was shattered and was out of power until after World War II.

The Democratic Party, quite obviously, cannot go into the 1996 election with two messages. There has to be a reconciliation. Congressional Democrats' initial reactions, however, did not sound that note. for example, Sen. John Breaux, D-La., reacted positively believing that Clinton has been "reborn." Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., in contrast, said that "I think most of us learned some time ago that if you don't like the president's position on a particular issue, you simply need to wait a few weeks."

The president and congressional Democrats eventually will have to meet halfway, reflecting a party that wants fiscal prudence along with more than a touch of heart and compassion. There is ample precedent for such a Democratic message. Remember Franklin Roosevelt ran as a staunch balance-the-budget man and repeatedly espoused that goal during his presidency. he swore he would balance the budget after World War II. Harry Truman, his political heir, substantially lived up to FDR's pledge. The Truman parallel is obviously one that has crossed the mind of Bill Clinton as he contemplates 1996.

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