Mr. Clinton, listen to your conservative voice.

With the Clinton presidency near the mid-point of its all-important first 100 days, maybe it's time for the former Arkansas governor to listen to his conservative inner voice. This voice will reaffirm that his "mandate," as one wag put it, is "not to be a liberal."

While the "L" word is not the shameful utterance it was a few years ago, that's probably because the rhetoric of many liberals has changed. Few, if any, in Washington's liberal establishment now view the federal deficit with joy, suggest radical Keynesian pump-priming to boost the economy, or call for dumping additional billions into the black hole known as the "War on Poverty." If there is any political constituency left for spend-more liberalism, it certainly wasn't apparent from the presidential race--where all three candidates claimed to be fiscal conservatives--nor from the various state ballot referendums voted on in November. Exit polls indicated that nearly 60 percent of all voters equated their choice for president with a vote for smaller government and lower taxes.

If Clinton's visit to former President Reagan shortly after the election is any indication, the president occasionally listens to his inner voice. It is the same voice that helped drive an entire wing of the Democratic Party away from liberalism for fear the party of Roosevelt wouldn't win another presidency in this century or half of the next. That wing called itself the Democratic Leadership Council, and its leader, an obscure Arkansas governor, is now in the White House. Not a bad piece of work.

But campaigns are one thing, governing is another. Clinton may have abandoned the sinking liberal ship, built a new one, and captained it to victory, but the government he leads is filled with retread liberals who slunk into lifeboats and now await the big battle. Will he listen to them--or will he remember the wisdom that led him to jump ship in the first place?

The new administration is under intense pressure from organized interest groups seeking a payoff--these range from the AFL-CIO and National Education Association to the Jackson Democrats (Jesse, that is) and radical environmentalists. With his party in control of Congress, Clinton is in a position to deliver the goods.

Will he pay off the NEA by turning his back on meaningful education reform? Will he pay off the AFL-CIO by getting involved in an unnecessary, no-win battle over Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which authorizes state Right to Work laws? Will he allow the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ralph Nader's Public Citizen to dictate policy at the EPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, FDA, FTC, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration?

Big business and big labor both have come calling, as have radical environmentalists, feminists, AIDS "advocates," the D.C. Statehood crowd, protectionists, and managed traders. The most important lesson the new president must learn from conservatives is to "just say no."

During his campaign, Clinton harped on "growing the economy" and reforming the welfare system. He tirelessly reaffirmed his faith in the private sector and free trade. He convinced voters that he has moved the Democratic Party back into the moderate-center mainstream of American politics. But if he truly intends to govern as a "new Democrat," Bill Clinton must:

* Establish urban enterprise zones. An enterprise zone plan was approved in the waning hours of the 102nd Congress, more than 13 years after my colleague Stuart Butler introduced the proposal to U.S. policymakers. If he's smart, Bill Clinton will support the plan. Though the plan became lost in a grab bag tax bill that ultimately deserved a presidential veto, he should know that jobs and prosperity don't come from government, but from new businesses. Will he push hard for enterprise-zone legislation--which he has supported in the past--or will he cave in to liberals who would rather see a good idea fail than see conservatives receive credit for helping America's inner cities?

* Tackle the budget deficit by restraining government spending. If he needs help, The Heritage Foundation last year identified more than $700 billion in government pork. Some of it should be eliminated outright. Other programs could benefit from privatization, an idea that has even won converts in many of America's most liberal statehouses.

* Empower poor and middle-income families. In many cases, government has contributed to their problems. Public schools, for example, are a government monopoly. Why not promote competition by giving poor and middle-income families the same choices the rich and famous enjoy? Sure, even with modest school-choice vouchers, poor families probably couldn't afford Andover, Exeter, or Cathedral School, but such assistance would still expand their choices.

* Champion tax relief, not tax increases. Families are stressed because they have too few dollars chasing too many expenses. In 1948, a typical family of four paid Washington 2 percent of its income in taxes. Today it pays 24 percent--with another 8 percent to 10 percent going to state and local government. The personal exemption in 1948 was roughly equivalent to 20 percent of the average family's income. Thus, the exemption for the typical family of four shielded some 80 percent of income from taxation. To provide today's parents with the same level of tax protection enjoyed by their parents, the exemption would have to be raised to approximately $8,000.

* Reduce the regulatory burden Washington places on American businesses and municipalities. To understand how pervasive the feds have become, Bill Clinton should note that if federal regulators all lived in Hot Springs, AR, where he grew up (population 32,462, according to the 1990 Census), the city would have to quadruple in size to accommodate nearly 125,000 federal bureaucrats who make their living harassing business. And harass they do. It is estimated that government regulations cost each American family between $8,388 and $17,134 per year--more than the average family pays in taxes.

* Press for a solution to the national health-care problem that won't make matters worse. Early in his campaign, Clinton proposed to "play-or-pay" plan that would require employers to either provide medical benefits to their employees or to pay a new tax to finance an expanded Medicaid-type program for the uninsured. Later he switched gears and embraced a concept known a "managed competition," which he aimed to meld with a play-or-pay system. To control spiraling costs, overall U.S. health-care spending would be limited by bureaucratic fiat.

However, there's a better way: the Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan. And Bill Clinton need look no further than the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program for a working prototype of such a system. While not perfect, FEHB--which covers Congress and more than 9 million other federal employees, retirees, and dependents (or about 1-in-25 Americans)--is based on two economic principles normally absent from government programs: consumer choice and market competition.

A similar system could be created by replacing the tax breaks now given exclusively to employer-based health plans (such benefits are tax-free) with individual tax credits and vouchers for the working poor. With each family purchasing its own health coverage, people would select the plan best suited to their needs, comparing price and value. The market's "invisible hand" is the most effective way to control costs.

Business executives should not expect miracles from the Clinton administration. If Bill Clinton embarks on a real change of course for the Democratic Party, he will enter a minefield. Nonetheless, if he listens to the conservative voice whispering in his ear, his chances of a successful presidency will be vastly improved. If he fails to listen, when the voters ask in 1996, "Are we better off today than we were four years ago?" the answer will likely be "No."

Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., is president of The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy research institution. He also serves on the boards of several other foundations and research institutes. Dr. Feulner is the author of "Conservatives Stalk the House."