Broad Issues Put Bush and Democratic Contenders on a Collision Course

However it turns out, the Senate Democratic filibuster against President Bush’s nomination of Miguel A. Estrada to a U.S. appellate court is a straw in the wind. It’s a signal that in the months ahead, the political conflict at home is likely to be as intense as the military conflict abroad.

If the United States goes to war with Iraq, don’t look for the kind of home-front unity that followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Across the full range of issues, the gap between the parties is expanding at an increasing velocity. Each side’s trajectory points toward a tumultuous congressional session and a 2004 presidential election that will present the country with the starkest choice it has faced since 1984, and arguably 1972.

On almost every front, the internal pressures on Bush and his potential Democratic rivals for 2004 are widening the distance between them. From the outset of his presidency, Bush has appeared determined -- at times almost fixated -- on deepening his support among the base Republican voters whose disillusionment helped sink his father’s reelection campaign in 1992.

Even amid his planning for war, Bush this year has produced a domestic agenda of stunning ambition -- from massive tax cuts to fundamental restructuring of social programs -- that excites those voters as much as it stuns and angers Democrats. The prospect of war with Iraq has only deepened the lines of division. Unlike the pursuit of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, this war is substantially dividing the public along lines of partisanship and ideology, polls show.

With Bush pushing forward so insistently on domestic and foreign issues, Democrats -- especially the party’s 2004 presidential contenders -- are facing enormous pressure from their base to resist him more forcefully than the party did last year. It’s a telling measure that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a candidate for the 2004 nomination, routinely draws loud applause when he tells audiences he’s running to represent “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”

None of the other contenders (other than longshot Al Sharpton) may follow Dean as far to the left, but the antipathy among activists for Bush’s agenda is affecting all of them; even Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who appears determined to run largely as a centrist, started a recent stump speech in South Carolina by growling, “If you came here looking for Republican-lite, you are in the wrong room.”

Watching the presidential race develop in these circumstances is like watching two cars speed off in opposite directions on a narrow racetrack: while they are heading away from each other, it’s only a matter of time until they crash head-on.

The list of likely collisions is rapidly lengthening.

On taxes, Bush is following the $1.35-trillion tax cut he pushed through Congress in 2001 with proposals to cut taxes by an additional $1.45 trillion over the next decade. Every Democratic candidate opposes the second round of tax cuts; indeed, every Democratic contender in Congress has promised to block the further reductions in income-tax rates for the top earners scheduled for 2004 and 2006 under the first Bush tax bill.

Bush has responded with characteristic forcefulness: In his new budget, he proposed to accelerate those scheduled cuts so they take place this year. Dean and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) have upped the ante. Both are talking about not only freezing the future tax cuts, but repealing most of the tax cuts that have already gone into effect -- in each case to fund health care for the 41 million uninsured Americans. Don’t bet against Bush taking up the gauntlet by offering more tax cuts next year.

Differences just as stark are emerging down the line of domestic issues. Bush is determined to appoint an all-star team of aggressive young conservative thinkers to the federal courts; Democrats (including the three senators in the presidential race) have mobilized to block Estrada, the first man over the wall, with a filibuster -- a weapon that hasn’t been used against a court appointee in more than three decades. Democrats think filibusters will force Bush to compromise on judges; his pattern over the last two years suggests he might respond by sending them nominees they like even less.

Bush wants to restructure not only Medicare and Medicaid but also Social Security, largely to increase their reliance on market forces and limit federal spending as the baby-boom generation retires; almost all Democrats are lining up unwaveringly against each of those ideas.

Bush wants to increase the production of oil from domestic sources, especially by drilling on public lands; Democrats such as Gephardt are promising a crash program to increase the availability of renewable energy sources like solar power. There’s more common ground on Iraq, with all of the 2004 Democratic contenders except Dean and Sharpton supporting military action if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm.

But that convergence masks disagreements over foreign policy just as fundamental as the domestic arguments. Bush operates on the theory that America can best protect its interests by acting decisively, and with minimum concession to the views of others, even if that means tensions with allies or conflicts with international institutions like the United Nations. In chorus, the Democratic contenders maintain that while the United States can’t surrender the right to act alone, working through alliances and the U.N. strengthens our security by dampening resentment of American power and encouraging cooperation against terrorism.

As these confrontations with Bush proliferate, Al From and Bruce Reed, leaders of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, issued a memo last week warning the 2004 Democrats against veering too far left to satisfy the hunger among primary voters for a nominee who will stand up to the president. That’s a genuine risk. But polls suggest Bush has focused so much on his base that he’s already alienating some voters in the middle.

On almost every issue, both parties seem to be spoiling for a fight. That dynamic guarantees voters clear choices in 2004. But it may also leave Americans in the middle wondering if anyone seeking the White House can break the cycle of partisan conflict that has pulverized Bush’s promise to change the tone in Washington.

*

Ronald Brownstein’s column appears every Monday. See current and past Brownstein columns on The Times’ Web site at: www.latimes.com/brownstein.