.TC Jumping in to try to settle the baseball strike seems like a no-brainer for President Clinton: What politician, after all, wouldn't want to claim credit for rescuing the national pastime?
But that'll be possible only if everything breaks the right way, which seldom happens in politics, as in baseball.
What Mr. Clinton would like, of course, is to use the impressive powers of the presidency to jawbone the sides into a compromise. That was unlikely from the start, however.
Without voluntary agreement, the president could push Congress to take action. But a government-imposed settlement, or even government-imposed arbitration, is likely to arouse the ire of at least some Republicans who control Congress and see their mandate as less rather than more government interference. Republicans also typically like to let labor and management fight it out in the marketplace, and they might worry about the precedent being set by having Congress settle things.
"If he can't get a bill passed, that's one more problem for Clinton," said James W. Quinn, one of America's most prominent labor attorneys, who represents football, baseball and hockey players on a variety of issues.
What about pushing for an end to the antitrust exemption? The mere threat of that might force owners to the table. Which would be just fine with the president.
But it could be politically risky for the president to look like he's bullying the owners, who have most at stake in maintaining the 73-year-old exemption. A poll last month by the Gallup organization found that 50 percent of fans favor the owners, and only 28 percent support the players. And that pro-owner sentiment has been rising since the strike began six months ago.
"On moral-character issues, fans side with the players, but they're also saying the players are more greedy," said Lydia Saad, a senior analyst for the Gallup Poll. "People aren't sympathetic to the players' plight."
Threatening to get rid of the exemption -- which lets owners trade players, run a draft and generally operate like a monopoly -- carries with it other risks, says Barry Bluestone, a professor of political economy at the University of Massachusetts-Boston. It could start a chain reaction of support among congressmen salivating over the prospect of new leagues and new teams for their districts, and what began as a bargaining chip quickly could become a reality. And any negative effect eliminating the exemption has on the game could be blamed on Mr. Clinton, the guy who got the whole thing rolling.
There are other worries, too. Will any proposed remedies happen in time to save spring training? Does the public, although it is
eager to see players back playing, think government should make that happen? Last time Gallup asked, just before the strike started last August, 72 percent of fans opposed presidential intervention and 24 percent said yes.
,.5l Even if the president succeeds in forcing some action and gets baseball going again, he'll likely have to share credit with Republicans who control Congress, said David King, an assistant professor of public policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
"And people will instinctively say, 'If he's done it now, why didn't he do it six months ago?' " said Mr. King.
Notwithstanding those risks, Mr. King said it's worth it for Clinton to step in. If he gets a settlement, said Mr. King, "Everyone will be happy except the ballplayers and the owners."
Richard Lapchick, director of Northeastern University's Center for the Study of Sport in Society, agreed: "If he wins, he's going right to the heart of the group of supporters he's supposedly disenfranchised -- white American males who seem to be the preponderance of baseball fans."
But Mr. Quinn, the labor lawyer, said the risks outweigh the potential benefits for the president: "It would appear to be not unlike Somalia. It seems to be simple on the outside, but once you get involved, you realize it's much more complex.
"There's a big-time quagmire there."