The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

"THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT!" FEW EXPRESSIONS OF ANTICRIME muscularity sound so satisfying, which is why, after embracing the idea in last week's State of the Union address, Bill Clinton was rewarded with his longest standing ovation (22 seconds). Here, the President said, is a solution that's both "tough and smart."

Why is a self-proclaimed "policy wonk" like Clinton, a man who enjoys nothing better than noodling the ramifications of governmental remedies, so charmed by the kind of kindergarten criminology some of the current "three strikes" proposals represent? Part of the reason is that little serious thinking took place. "The President was moved by the Polly Klaas case," says White House domestic-policy assistant Bruce Reed. "He'd dealt with crime at the grass roots in Arkansas, but after meeting with the murdered girl's father in December he realized again that we have to do more to keep people like that off the streets." Yes but, says another Administration official. "Obviously the whole thing was poll driven. Even after ((Clinton)) met with Mr. Klaas, he didn't speak about three strikes until the polls said crime is our latest No. 1 issue." To sate Clinton's self-indulgence -- and conform with the polls -- the White House concluded (surprise) that "three strikes," in Reed's words, "is a defensible proposition."

But smart? "Hardly," says Joe Biden, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman no one has ever accused of being soft on crime. "Three strikes is the wacko" product of other Senators eager to outdo their colleagues on the toughness scale.

Under either of the two "three strikes" schemes the Senate has already passed (the House has yet to act), a violent felon could be sent to prison for life without the possibility of parole if he committed a third, federal crime following two previous state convictions. As currently written, three strikes could work like this: a mugger shoves a woman while snatching her purse; strike one. The same criminal stiff-arms a store clerk while swiping a coat; strike two. Twenty years later (there are no intervals in either proposal), the same person punches a federal official, or assaults someone in a national park; strike three. The U.S. Sentencing Commission estimates that at most, only 690 federal prisoners a year would be in for life if "three strikes" were law. "With several million felonies a year, that's not going to have a major impact on violent crime," says Biden, who knows that the true danger of feel-good bromides like "three strikes" is that they create the illusion of problem solving.

But what exactly does Clinton favor? Does he really want to sweep up the purse snatchers and coat thieves? No one knows for sure. A few hours before last Tuesday's speech, Vice President Gore said, "We'll let Congress decide." Minutes later, presidential counselor David Gergen admitted, "We don't even know what the different congressional ideas call for." The day after Clinton's address, White House press secretary Dee Dee Meyers echoed Gore and Gergen; she didn't know what was on the table, only that the White House wasn't going to get involved. "Actually," insists Reed, disagreeing with Gore and Meyers,"we want to work with Congress to narrow it so we get only the really bad guys."

"They'd better," says Biden. "I won't be left out there to jettison all the crap because of ((Clinton's)) lack of leadership. After the President's speech, there's no chance to kill the idea outright. That's the politics of it. So, sure, we've got to focus it, but that won't happen unless the President steps up and takes a position. We should impact the 6% or so who commit roughly 70% of the violent crime. We shouldn't be stupid." But that's where Clinton may be headed unless he joins Biden to stand against hysteria.