America Inc.?

Two decades ago, Americans sensed that a once-great nation was in trouble. From declining productivity to double-digit interest rates, reports of the country's demise dominated the news - not just on the business page but on the front page. One common theme to virtually every critique of the dilemma: the failure of U.S. business, government, and labor to build a national consensus. This failure stood in sharp contrast to Japan and West Germany, whose cooperative approaches to economic development were much-ballyhooed.

To the Carterites, the prescription for curing America's economic ills was contained in the heady catchword "reindustrialization." While somewhat vague and imprecise, it did point to the need for greater collaboration between business and government. Nevertheless, Americans flatly rejected this chic, new slogan that begged for the more unified approach of Japan and other countries.

Today there is mounting evidence that the U.S. may be tilting in a more consensual direction. While there are certainly detractors - those who believe that increased government involvement in business could compromise competitiveness - increasingly, Wall Street and Washington are acknowledging the benefits of joining forces, particularly when it comes to international business.

In a sharp break from previous administrations, President Bill Clinton recognizes that an arm's-length attitude toward business doesn't help in the real world, where U.S. firms compete against companies backed by activist governments. Recognizing the old adage, "trade follows the flag," Clinton is directing every arm of government to pursue "commercial advocacy" on behalf of U.S. multinationals. "We have unashamedly become an active partner in helping our business enterprises win contracts abroad," he has proclaimed.

This reshift in focus is directly tied to the White House's economic agenda of boosting growth and creating jobs by expanding American exports. To that end, the president eased export controls on computers and other high-technology gear in 1993. A year later, he swept away bans on the sale of most telecommunications technology to China and the former Soviet bloc. However, it has been the administration's insistence that our diplomats cozy up to American business that is winning converts in many corporate boardrooms.

To its credit, the State Department is rallying around the flag - assisting U.S. telecommunications firms entering Mexico, lobbying for heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar in Syria, and paving the way for McDonnell Douglas in Malaysia.

Today, every U.S. ambassador is trained to promote American business abroad. In addition, the State Department bestows a $5,000 annual award on the foreign service officer who does the most to advance U.S. commercial interests. "When I call the embassy now, I get an ambassador - and the ambassador wants to help. These guys are all revved up to assist the business community," says Roger Sant, chairman of AES, an independent power producer based in Arlington, VA. "I've never seen anything like this in any administration."

Administration cabinet members also are pitching for American business. Whether it is Energy Secretary Hazel R. O'Leary signing $6 billion in joint-venture contracts with China, or Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin securing much-sought-after accords for U.S. financial services in India, the Clinton administration is going to bat for corporate America. But the super salesman is Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown. Washington must "put the weight of the American government behind U.S. companies," he says. Brown is the point-man on a highly coordinated team, which includes the Commerce, State, and Defense departments, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency and various financing agencies. Brown has been especially effective in leading countless business-government entourages to Russia, South America, the West Bank and Gaza, Africa, China, and India.

Brown's activism is reaping handsome dividends. His team's initiatives on behalf of U.S. exporters have generated contracts worth $19.5 billion, creating or preserving an estimated 300,000 American jobs. Chrysler Chairman Robert Eaton has seen the results: "The Commerce Department today is the most effective and proactive it has been in my business career."

Other beneficiaries of the administration's dollar diplomacy include:

* Enserch Development in Dallas, recently awarded a $450 million, 300-megawatt power plant in the state of Kerala, India.

* Entergy, a power-plant builder based in New Orleans, which signed major deals in Shaanxi and Guangdong, China.

* Exxon, the Irving, TX-based recipient of a $35 billion contract with Indonesia's national oil company, Petramina, to develop a huge offshore natural gas field.

* Raytheon in Lexington, MA, which sold a $1.4 billion surveillance system - satellites, aircraft electronics and computers - to Brazil for measuring the health of the Amazon rain forest.

Understandably, this sudden high-level attention from Commerce is not lost on the captains of industry. George M.C. Fisher, chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak in Rochester, NY, has said: "Ron Brown has given us more support than anyone I've seen in [the department]."

Despite these successes, the U.S. is in a catch-up phase when compared with its foreign competitors. America still lags badly in providing concessionary financing for developing nations, a factor that has hurt China trade. Nevertheless, Clintonites desperately want to make up for lost ground.

The administration's passion for brokering trade deals has its detractors. An invisible - not a helping - hand is what conservative critics want from Washington. They fear that the White House's activism in overseas commerce could tilt the country toward more intrusive government. One consequence they foresee: the possibility of national economic planning, with federal bureaucrats targeting "sunrise" and "sunset" industries. Common to every conservative complaint is the nostalgia for laissez-faire days when U.S. multinationals succeeded or failed on their own. Other detractors in business take issue with specifics: the White House's unilateral boycott of Iran, for example, or the president's alleged footdragging in normalizing trade relations with Vietnam.

While most Republicans applaud President Clinton's business-first approach, they are suspicious about Washington's encroachment in commerce. Some GOPers are lobbying to cut $1.4 billion from the budget of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the world's biggest export-credit agency, before September 1999. Others, including Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-KS), want to abolish the Commerce Department in their zeal to shrink government.

Assuming Commerce and Brown - who is fighting for his political life over ethical issues - survive, the pendulum is swinging in favor of stronger commercial advocacy of U.S. business. But the key question remains: What is government's proper role in economic affairs? On balance, chief executives recognize there is room for improvement in collaborating with Washington to enhance competitiveness, from exports to tax policies to education and training. However, they are not enamored with forging "America Inc." Why? CEOs fear the erosion of economic privatism could compromise political liberty and competitiveness.

If there is a role for an activist government, it may be at the state, not federal, level. Today's stars are go-getting governors: Christine Todd Whitman (R-NJ), William F. Weld (R-MA), Tommy G. Thompson (R-WI), Pete Wilson (R-CA), among others. They have successfully built strong business-government coalitions. Therefore, we should expect more state-led initiatives in the years ahead.

Americans are genuinely eager to tilt this nation gradually toward a new spirit of cooperation. However, deeds - not words that blindly beg for partnership where none exists - will be the answer.

David A. Heenan is vice chairman of Honolulu-based Fort Street Investment, a diversified real-estate development company. He is also the author of "The New Corporate Frontier: The Big Move to Small Town, USA" [McGraw-Hill 1991].