Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: It goes with the territory

Friday, Sept. 24, 1999 | 10:15 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun

FORGET THE FOREST, these guys can't even see the trees.

It was a small story in Wednesday's Sun, which means it was probably a big deal inside the Beltway, which means it was still a small one where it counts. I am referring to the headline, "Clinton's travel costs irk senators."

Yeah, so tell me something President Clinton has done in the past seven years that hasn't upset some senator, especially a Republican looking for something to complain about that will hold water with an electorate that is generally happy with the job the president is doing.

The story referred to complaints by three senators, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Craig Thomas of Wyoming and Larry Craig of Idaho, who think that Clinton spent too much money when he traveled to Africa, China and South America. The number is close to $72 million.

Just for the record, $72 million is more than most people would spend traveling to those or any other countries on this planet. It is even more than the complaining senators might spend traveling around their own states or back and forth to Washington. In fact, it is more money than any normal person could ever imagine spending on a lifetime of travel, including the shopping!

But, alas, the president of the United States is not a normal person when it comes to travel, and as much as the three complaining senators would like to trade places and go to those countries on behalf of their own, they can't. They are stuck with round trips from Wyoming, Idaho and Alabama. Thank goodness!

I would have understood such grousing if it came from someone like Pat Buchanan. Pat, among his other less admirable traits, is a politically avowed isolationist who believes that the world and all living creatures begin and end at the borders of the United States of America. As such, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should consider, much less want, to travel beyond our borders, especially to such socially unpleasant places as Africa, South America or China?

That's Pat Buchanan. I never even considered that there might be more of his ilk lurking in the halls of the U.S. Senate. If so, that would explain Sens. Craig, Thomas and Sessions and their obsession over the White House travel budget. But as far as I know, one or two of these guys is on the square so xenophobia is not an excuse.

So why have they picked on the president's travel? Don't they know that's part of the job description? Don't they know that as we head into the 21st century, the world will continue to shrink to the extent that if we don't have personal contacts and credibility at all levels with every part of this world, the United States will be the poorer for it? Don't they know that Clinton's trips, while required generally as part of his constitutionally mandated conduct of foreign affairs, are also undertaken to offset some of the damage a close-minded Congress has inflicted on our international reputation?

Come to think of it, there is probably a lot those guys don't know. But why, one might ask, do they go about sharing their ignorance with so many others? Don't look to me for that answer; the question was hard enough to write.

I suspect that if Clinton had decided in 1993 that he would forgo his foreign policy responsibilities to the nation and stay at home, senators like these three would now be complaining that he failed to do the job for which he was elected. They would have found any number of reasons why he should have left town and encouraged him to do just that.

But that is not the case. These guys are unhappy that Clinton spent our money. They didn't say he shouldn't have gone. Nor have I heard them even suggest that the substantial work he did defusing missile crises, aiding economic disaster relief and building goodwill toward our country in the wake of the fall of Soviet dominance in some areas should have been avoided. That would be political suicide for them because every American, supportive or not of the president, must agree that his foreign policy efforts -- tireless and unending -- have benefited all Americans.

So how much should he have spent? If $72 million is too much, what about $42 million or $52 million? Maybe $67 million is the right number. Who knows and who, really, can say? The fact of the matter is that Clinton has accomplished far more to help generations of Americans through his trips to those countries than most of these senators have accomplished through their investigations, government shutdowns and general intransigence over matters of great public import like Social Security and medical insurance for the un- and underinsured.

And the public knows this and approves, which is the crux of this whole matter. Senators and others like Craig, et al. can't stand the fact that the public likes the job President Clinton is doing. The voters also can't stand the continued nitpicking from the opposition. That is why the leadership of the GOP picked those three lesser-knowns to make the ridiculous charges. They have safe seats and public scorn will not affect them.

But scorn tends to rub off. And money, no matter how much they have to waste, may not be sufficient to make things right.

The point is simple.