Ever since Bill Clinton was elected president, the White House has glowed with the presence of many glittering Hollywood stars.

Barbra Streisand is a sleep-over guest and gets policy briefings from Clinton's top aides. The president took time in between sessions with Russian President Boris Yeltsin to meet with Sharon Stone, Michael Douglas and several other stars at the Vancouver summit. And that is just the beginning.

After twelve years of Republicans, Hollywood's beautiful, liberal people are flocking to this friendlier administration. They lobby the president's staff on their pet issues and act like they are a part of the loop.

Hollywood is not new to politics. Stars often use their fame to appeal for certain causes. This phenomenon may have reached a peak this year with Richard Gere's plea for Tibet (certainly a worthy cause) at the Oscar ceremony.

And Hollywood's presence at the White House is not new either. John F. Kennedy frequently entertained movie stars, and Ronald Reagan was himself a product of the silver screen. Even George Bush in all his preppy awkwardness was known to cavort with Hollywood luminaries once in a while.

But Clinton seems particularly awestruck. It is as if he's convinced that he's finally made it to the big time and wants to milk it for all its worth. There's something disconcerting about seeing the country's highest elected leader--the world's most powerful man--schmoozing with actors whose main qualification is their looks.

It's time for Clinton to look a little bit less like an awestruck boy from Arkansas, and a little more like a president. He can start by asking Hollywood's elite to do something to help the country, something much more substantive than making speeches at the Oscars or wearing bejeweled AIDS ribbons. And he won't have to look very far.

Movies coming out of Hollywood have become more and more violent in recent years. Action films vie for the most gross, realistic scenes possible. Modern special effects allow them to rise above normal everyday death and destruction and depict truly horrific scenes. Think how disappointed Schwarzenegger fans would be if there were only typical shootings in his next movie.

Studies have shown that American youth witness an ungodly number of television and movie murders before they reach adulthood. The effect of this violence varies depending on the viewer. A child with a stable, loving family may not be affected very much; a child who receives less attention and guidance might be affected more.

By all accounts, the high-level of violence desensitizes everyone. A murder down the street might seem minor, even disappointingly mundane, in comparison to the splashy, action-packed violence of movies. Many claim that the reason the Los Angeles police officers were let off the first time was because the jury had seen the videotape of Rodney King's beating so many times that they were no longer shocked. This type of visual overload in turn deadens our impulse to act, our outrage at real violence.

And more than anything else our society needs that outrage. Residents of neighborhoods with high levels of violence need to become angry with the criminals perpetuating it. Middle-class America needs to get mad at the nightly pictures of shootings in poorer neighborhoods. Politicians and leaders need to be angry that our society can often no longer protect its citizens.

Toning down the violence in movies will not stop the cycle of violence plaguing America, but it wouldl be a step in the right direction.

But what does this have to do with President Clinton? Well, first of all, he is the president, and with that title comes a handy bully pulpit (as Ross Perot would say). Second, being a Democrat, he has more ideological clout with Hollywood than his predecessors. Third, his ties to show business are strong, as his Hollywood-choreographed inauguration demonstrated.

Clinton should use these advantages to pose a challenge to the movie stars gracing the White House banquet table: If they really want to do something for the country, they can start by toning down the violence in movies.

If big-name Hollywood stars took such a challenge seriously, things really might change. Stars could use their clout by refusing to appear in excessively violent movies. That would shake up movie executives more than any whining from parent groups ever could. If even a few stars took the challenge, the move could snowball into a general rise in standards in the movie industry.

What makes this plan possible is that it would use Hollywood to change Hollywood. It would be a kind of self-censorship--the only kind of censorship that should be allowed. The government should never involve itself in outlawing movies, no matter how offensive; that would be worse than the problem itself. But the evils of government censorship should not deter citizens from speaking out against what they feel is hurting society.

A stand by Clinton, our most visible citizen, would show Hollywood that concern about excessive violence is not simply a partisan political issue, as Dan Quayle's "family values" campaign seemed to be.

If President Clinton wants to allow Hollywood's elite to continue gliding around the White House, so be it. But he should make sure they leave with something more than White House stationary: a lesson on how to actually help the country.

Clinton should encourage the Hollywood stars who cluster around him seeking to make a difference to use their influence with movie executives to tone down the excessive and graphic violence in their films.