He's No Jimmy Carter--Or Is He?

In nearly as many ways as there are people in Arkansas, the election of Bill Clinton as president of the United States last night mirrored the electoral triumph of former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter 16 years ago.

Carter and Clinton, both of whom ran as mixtures of policy wonk and spiritual redeemer, were obscure governors of Southern states before launching their equally improbable bids for the presidency.

Each emerged badly bruised by rough primary campaigns, during which each was hounded relentlessly by former California Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.

And the two Southerners, both of whom campaigned with the help of unknown, hard-nosed political consultants (Hamilton Jordan for Carter, James Carville for Clinton), left their conventions with 30 point leads which dwindled to single digits in election day tallies.

Carter and Clinton, who are close friends, won victories that were perceived as much as a sign of the country's economic woes and rejections of their opponents as they were considered mandates for their respective presidencies.

Now, the primary challenge for Clinton, who--unwittingly or not--closely followed Carter's campaign strategy, is to avoid the traps that mired the Georgian's presidency in malaise.

Carter, like Clinton, won the White House by running as an unabashed moderate emphasizing change.

Liberal Democrats, thirsty for a victory after two successive wins by Richard M. Nixon, remained quiet during the election, much as they have done this year as Clinton attempted the same strategy.

After he was elected, Carter had many public bouts with liberal groups--the kind of disputes Clinton must avoid if he is to maintain the appearance of unity.

And Clinton--a man with a penchant for the five- or six-point plan--will have to avoid falling into the trap of micro-managing the executive branch.

Clinton will also govern a country where trust of politicians, according to opinion polls, has dropped to levels unseen since shortly after Watergate--when Carter began his run for the presidency.

Many Americans may be worrying about these similarities. President Bush even tried to play to fears of a Carter-Clinton link, warning in the debates of "malaise days" and saying in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention that "America does not need Carter II."

But many members of the Carter administration who are supporting Clinton think the Arkansas governor's experience will be different.

"Clinton's a different type of politician," says Professor Joseph S. Nye, who was deputy undersecretary of state for Carter. "Clinton has much better political skills than President Carter did."

But Clinton, like Carter, may be susceptible to the charge that in order to get elected, he over-promised.

During his transition period, in fact, Carter had to order a list of all his promises drawn up because he was unable to remember them all. There is no word yet from the Clinton camp whether they will do the same.

In addition, Carter's controversial selections for his Cabinet might contain a lesson for Clinton, who has made "change" into a political buzzword.

Carter had promised throughout the campaign to bring new blood to his Cabinet. Jordan, Carter's campaign manager, even went so far as to tell Playboy magazine that if Cyrus Vance was named Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski was appointed head of the National Security Council, "then I would say we failed, and I'd quit."

Carter was strongly criticized when Vance and Brzezinski, longtime political players, were eventually appointed to those very posts. And Jordan, who worked briefly for Texas billionaire Ross Perot this year, remained an advisor to the President.

Clinton must also be wary of repeating Carter's mistake of alienating Democratic members of Congress. In 1977, after a fairly successful first 100 days of legislative activity, the Congress turned against Carter when he dropped support of a tax cut that had been one of his campaign promises. After that, many of Carter's initiatives were blocked by legislators.

And needless to say, Clinton would probably be wise to avoid appearing weak in the wake of an international crisis like the taking of the hostages in Iran, which crippled Carter's hopes for re-election.

But, Nye notes, Clinton will be leading a changed country in a world much different than the one Carter faced.

In the end, the issues that will define the Clinton presidency may be completely different than the ones that shaped the Carter administration.

"I think President Carter's problems were partly personal and partly a result of the Cold War and the tensions and debate it caused," Nye says. "It's a different world and Clinton won't have all the same problems."