Experts: Next president may have chance to lead

By SARA FRITZ and BILL ADAIR

© St. Petersburg Times, published November 30, 2000

WASHINGTON -- During his campaign for the presidency, George W. Bush promised to bring fresh leadership to the White House.

"I am a leader," the Republican candidate declared repeatedly -- sometimes with real authority, and at other times with the aspiring tone of a schoolboy who wants to grow up to be president.

"Leaders must be responsible and in our great democracy, the top responsibility rests with the president of the United States. I am prepared to assume this awesome responsibility."

At the time, those words sounded like campaign rhetoric. But if the Republican candidate actually becomes the next president after this hotly disputed election in which he now holds the advantage, the central question facing him will be: Can he live up to that promise?

Some pundits think the task ahead for Bush is too daunting. With only a razor-thin victory, an almost evenly divided Congress and a legacy of partisan rancor in Washington during the previous administration, these skeptics foresee nothing but government gridlock for the next four years.

Even though the difficulties will be monumental, a surprising number of public officials and political scientists are saying Bush could have an opportunity to demonstrate the leadership he talked about repeatedly during his campaign against Democrat Al Gore.

"He has a better chance of governing peaceably for a while -- more than you might think, considering the narrowness of his victory," said presidential scholar Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank. "He has made an issue of governing, and his skills are as a chief executive. I can see him governing quite well, at least for a while."

Larry Sabato, political scientist at the University of Virginia, says he, too, is optimistic about the prospects of the next president.

"I wouldn't be surprised if the new president, be it Bush or Gore, ends up with a high approval rating in those early months and ends up with a honeymoon," he said.

Perhaps it is just wishful thinking, but these optimistic Washington veterans, including Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., think the stressful circumstances under which the 43rd president is being chosen might produce a better result than if he had been elected with a sweeping mandate. With any luck, Graham said, 2001 could be "the year of the moderate antidote to gridlock."

In other words, because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can do anything without the other side, they might be forced to seek the kind of compromise that has been anathema in Washington over the past decade.

"It will force a greater degree of bipartisanship in order to get something accomplished," Graham noted.

Even the shortened transition period could work in favor of compromise, some experts think. With many top jobs still vacant throughout the next year, the new administration will depend on the federal government's permanent bureaucracy: longtime civil servants who know the issues and generally do not indulge in the ideological battles that engage political appointees.

There is historical precedent for a president without a clear mandate making important strides in the White House.

John F. Kennedy went from a narrow victory over Richard Nixon in 1960 to become one of the most popular presidents in American history, and his successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, pushed much of his Great Society program through Congress after inheriting office as a result of Kennedy's assassination.

Some think the blueprint for a reasonably successful Bush presidency can be found in one of the speeches he delivered in Pittsburgh during the final days of the campaign. The speech, "Responsible Leadership," was predicated on the notion that the next president has to seek compromise, not confrontation.

"In recent years, there's been too much argument in Washington and not enough discussion," Bush said. "Too many standoffs and showdowns and shutdowns. Too much deadlock and gridlock. And Americans don't like what they see. . . .

"I will change the tone of Washington. . . . Should I earn your confidence, I intend to work with Republicans and Democrats to get things done for the American people that both parties represent. . . . I know you can't take the politics out of politics. I am a realist. But I'm convinced our government can show courage in confronting hard problems; more good will toward the other side; more integrity in the exercise of power."

If Bush was sincere in that pledge, he could overcome many of the obvious obstacles, said Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Largo.

"What's going to have to happen is that the leaders of both parties are going to have to agree in a very sincere way -- not just with words -- that we have certain obligations to the country that we have to deal with," Young said.

As Young sees it, House Speaker Dennis Hastert must play a stronger leadership role if that is to happen. In recent years, Hastert, R-Ill., known as a well-meaning, low-key leader, has often been eclipsed by the more hard-edged, partisan people in his party, such as House Whip Tom DeLay, D-Texas.

"I have told him (Hastert) that so many times, "Denny, you are the speaker.' Now that he's been elected on his own, I think you'll see a stronger hand," Young said. "I'm encouraging him to spend time with Dick Gephardt," the House minority leader from Missouri.

Another suggestion that Bush has received from a number of prominent people, including former Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan., and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., is to appoint Democrats as well as Republicans to his Cabinet to demonstrate his willingness to seek bipartisan solutions to problems.

Acknowledging the wisdom in that idea, some Bush aides have indicated that he is considering a few centrist Democrats for key posts within his administration, such as former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia for defense secretary or Milwaukee Mayor John Norquiest for education secretary.

However, Nunn said Wednesday, "I am not interested in going back into government at this juncture in my life."

An even more radical idea that has been discussed in some quarters: Bush could offer Gore a job in the administration -- as ambassador to the United Nations, perhaps -- just as Franklin Roosevelt sent his defeated opponent, Wendell Willkie, on an around-the-world goodwill tour on behalf of the United States after the 1940 election.

Bush could also be expected to focus on issues such as education that have broad bipartisan support, while steering clear of his more devisive campaign promises. Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., has publicly advised Bush to "back off" on the $1.3-trillion tax cut that he made the center of his campaign, and instead look for a compromise with Democrats on a plan to provide prescription drug benefits for Medicare patients.

"The issues bring us together; the question is on what issues can we find common ground?" observed Rep. Jim Davis, D-Tampa.

In the Senate, Graham, leader of the moderate Democrats, indicated he intends to help forge consensus in that closely divided chamber, no matter whether Bush or Gore is in the White House. "We don't have to bring everybody to the center," Graham said, "we just have to bring enough to have a working majority."

Likewise on foreign policy, compromise may be possible. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., who is advising Bush on foreign policy issues, said he expects Bush to minimize his foreign policy disagreements with the Democrats by being less of a hardline opponent to U.S. intervention in foreign trouble spots than he seemed to be during the campaign.

"I don't think these sorts of doctrines work as a template," Lugar said. "That isn't exactly what happens in real life."

Lugar, who hopes to succeed Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the new Congress, says he looks forward to working to achieve cooperation between Bush's secretary of state and the Democrats in the Senate.

Of course, the next few years won't be easy for Bush, if he wins the presidency. Even if he tries his best to achieve a cooperative relationship with the Democratic opposition, Brookings scholar Hess notes that because Democrats have nearly as many votes in Congress as Republicans, "it will be easy for them to put sand in the gears."

David Winston, a Republican pollster who serves as a strategist for the House GOP leadership, noted that the Democrats will try their best during the next two years to create enough voter dissatisfaction with Republicans, and that is certain to cause strife.

"The 2002 election is going to be unbelievably competitive," Winston said. "In fact, it's fair to say the campaign for control of the Congress in 2002 has already started."

-- Information from Times wires was used in this report.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright