Chronicle of a Presidency Foretold : Domestically, indecisiveness and failed promises; abroad, no clear goals or firm stands.

There was a momentary national jolt, a sense of relief, perhaps even a feeling of discovering presidential leadership when Bill Clinton grabbed the steering wheel and made a decision on Haiti. Then Jimmy Carter appeared on the scene and the steering wheel changed hands. My pain returned; the pain of watching the unraveling of Clinton’s presidency, even despite his decisive moves in Iraq.

I voted for Clinton with a passion. There was so much hope behind this young man: hope centered on the badly neglected domestic sector and shared by those forgotten by society; hope shared by men and women deprived of medical security, trapped by the outdated welfare system and by people like me, doing well but aware that unless we share, we are living on borrowed time. But gradually, our hopes became frustration and almost despair. What went wrong?

The new President came with a mission and a vision that he articulated with zeal, talent and superb oratory. But he also came surrounded by men and women limited in experience and practical knowledge, arrogant with the sudden access to power and much too immature to be humble and willing to learn.

He arrived with an agenda that was too ambitious for a hesitant country. Early on, Clinton demonstrated his major weakness: lack of decisiveness. His references to Harry Truman did not ring true. His commitments were of short duration. His promise to produce a health-care program within 100 days was an error in judgment. His promise to reform the welfare system went nowhere.

And yet, he also proved that when determined, he could produce results. Witness the crime bill, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Brady bill on gun control. He has what it takes to lead, to be presidential.

So why does he not use his best ammunition more often? Why has he created a foreign-policy team--with the exception of Madeleine Albright at the United Nations--which is viewed as the weakest since the end of World War II? Threats are frequent, with no follow-through; blueprints are provided to potential adversaries about planned military actions, usually with nothing carried through.

America is being viewed more and more as a helpless giant, an economic power house and military superpower that does nothing more than flex its muscles toward dwarf nations.

Among my former countrymen in post-communist Eastern Europe, there continues to be a longing for an American President whose goals are clear and whose interests transcend our shores. They admired Nixon, Reagan and Bush, judging them almost exclusively on their firm anti-communist stand, caring little about internal American politics. And among our Asian friends and foes, perceptions have been highly colored by our dealings with the nuclear threats from North Korea. Instead of standing firm, we chose a road that only postponed the days of reckoning.

One of the byproducts of the Clinton Administration’s weaknesses is, on one side, the deafening silence of the moderate wing of the opposition, and on the other, a strong showing of the extreme right. It is there where ideas lead toward superimposed patriotism, toward forcing Christian religious values on the multicultural and multireligious America, toward the notion that it is a sin to be poor.

These are the frightening alternatives. I have seen other societies drift into conformity. Being Polish-born, I watched totalitarianism slowly creep into highly sophisticated societies. After World War II, I came to America believing that my family and I would escape forever from the dark forces of bigotry and intolerance.

This is why I counted so deeply on the Clinton presidency. I still believe that there is time and energy for this President to be a strong and resolute leader. Otherwise, this nation and this relatively new citizen will be unwilling witnesses to a decline in the traditional image of America.