Posted on 12/13/2002 8:19:37 AM PST by opocno
Relationships Among Republicans Will Set Agenda for 108th
It has been fascinating to watch the media fascination with Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who has succeeded Rep. Richard Gephardt (Mo.) as Minority Leader in the House of Representatives. For a couple of weeks, the main story in Washington was about this new Congressional leader, widely considered to have strong ideological views outside the mainstream, who will be a central player in policy and politics in the next two years, and whose success or failure managing rank-and-file Members, relations with the White House and the other side, and ability to get a message across to the voting public, may shape the relative success of the two parties in 2004.
It was the right story, but it was about the wrong person. The key player, in fact, is a new Congressional leader with strong ideological views - but it is incoming House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), not Nancy Pelosi.
The intense media focus on Pelosi has in some ways been understandable, as has the correspondingly intense media focus on "Whither the Democrats?" As Minority Leader, Pelosi will be a major player in her party's strategy and public face as it struggles to right itself after a deep setback Nov. 5. And her ability to unite her fellow Democrats in the House, and to craft a message for and from them, will have some considerable impact on the party's image and on its role in the policy process.
But Democrats are a minority party in Congress, with a role, especially in the House, limited to counterpunching. The key to the next two years is with the punchers - the Republicans, who will set the policy agenda in substance and timing and will be able to frame the debate and priorities in a nearly unfettered way.
The most interesting and important relationships in Washington over the next two years will thus not be between Republicans and Democrats, but among Republicans. The key to politics and policy will lie in their internal struggles over what issues will constitute their policy agenda and what priorities will emerge leading into the 2004 campaign. Having all the reins of power and sky-high expectations, but with slender majorities in both chambers, how will Republicans manage their agenda?
DeLay is not a new leader, but he is moving up the ladder to his party's top policy and public post. He is a tough, savvy political professional and has been the most effective party Whip in modern Congressional history. Over the first two years of the Bush presidency, DeLay forged remarkable party unity on the House floor, keeping his Republican troops together well enough to repeatedly win victories by narrow margins, despite having a razor-thin majority.
As he now moves up from Whip to Leader, DeLay has managed to surround himself in his leadership team with a collection of loyal and effective allies that range from new Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) to new Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce (Ohio).
His tireless fundraising efforts on behalf of his colleagues and his get-out-the-vote organization have created appreciation and added loyalty from nearly all of his rank-and-file colleagues. DeLay is also a hard-edged conservative ideologue with strong views on social issues like abortion, as well as on slashing both taxes and the role of government in domestic life.
DeLay is the lodestar around which three key relationships will revolve: ¥ DeLay and President Bush. Although fellow Texans, there has never been a close personal relationship between DeLay and Bush. They are stylistically different, with DeLay showing impatience and disdain for the compromise approach then-Gov. Bush took with Democrats in Texas, and for the compassionate conservatism Bush espouses.
To be sure, the president's tough foreign policy stance and domestic agenda of more tax cuts, tort reform and private accounts for Social Security are shared enthusiastically by DeLay. But DeLay will want to use the election momentum and the new party control of the Senate to push a more hard-edged conservative agenda, in terms of social issues, tax cuts and spending cuts, than will Bush, who will try to balance tough and compassionate conservatism.
Will Bush call the tune when it comes to moderating and calibrating the tone, focus and shape of what comes up in the House and when? Or will DeLay push a set of priorities which Bush has claimed as his own but which may not fit the Bush re-election strategy? How much will the president be willing to crack the whip and move to rein in DeLay? How well will DeLay respond?
¥ DeLay and incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). Former Rep. Al Swift (D) of Washington was fond of telling the story of a new House Member referring to the other party's lawmakers as the enemy. A more senior colleague said, "No, they're just adversaries. The Senate, that's the enemy."
Despite the change in party control in the Senate, House Republicans will have the same attitude. The Senate's different rules and culture make it a very different place, one where Lott will have to contend daily with Democrats - and not just the conservative variety like Sen. Zell Miller (Ga.) - and a higher proportion of moderate Republicans such as Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) than the House has.
The Senate is more pro-choice than the House, more free-trade-oriented and more internationalist. The tough conservative legislation DeLay will be able to get through the House will either founder in the Senate or get diluted. Will Lott be able to cool DeLay's jets, or will DeLay push Lott toward a more hard-edged agenda? How will both men handle the difficulties sure to emerge in House-Senate conferences?
One early battleground will be the fate of the promises Lott made to his moderate Republicans to get their votes on expedited passage of the Department of Homeland Security, promises to cut out or sharply dilute the add-ons DeLay made to the bill in the House, like the retroactive removal of tort liability for vaccine maker Eli Lilly. After the Senate voted, DeLay wasted no time undercutting Lott, announcing that those provisions would stay in law. If they do, Lott's own standing with his troops will be seriously undercut; what good is a promise to deal with an issue after a vote if it is effectively undone by your "friends" in the other body?
¥ DeLay and Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Hastert is a man underestimated nearly as much as Bush. He is wily and strong, but more institution-minded than DeLay, more reactive than aggressive, more inclined to act as an implementer for the president and not an opinion leader for his ideology, and more apt to back a balanced agenda. But his DeLay-led leadership team will frequently push him to draw lines in the dust that he does not want to draw. If DeLay pushes him, will he push back and assert his authority? The early signs are that Hastert will indeed assert himself, but how often? And how often will he need to do so?
DeLay is not a reflexive right-wing ideologue who will run over anybody, including his own president, who gets in his way. He has been a key field general for much of the Bush agenda, and along the way not always followed his own ideology. But he could end up being a more headstrong and haughty Douglas MacArthur than a responsive and loyal Omar Bradley to Bush.
He has strong views, a strong desire to implement them, and a disdain for weakness or unnecessary compromise. How Bush, Lott and Hastert manage their relationships with DeLay will have more to do with their collective and individual success in 2003 and 2004 than anything Democratic leaders like Pelosi do or say.
For a couple of weeks, the main story in Washington was about this new Congressional leader, widely considered to have strong ideological views outside the mainstream, who... may shape the relative success of the two parties in 2004.The difference: his strong ideological views are not outside the mainstream.It was the right story, but it was about the wrong person. The key player, in fact, is a new Congressional leader with strong ideological views
Indeed. It still amazes me that my liberal friends think that because a politician is against abortion and for tax cuts (positions probably favored by 50% and 70% of the electorate, respectively), he's "outside the mainstream" or even "beyond the pale." But then, I live in Massachusetts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.