WASHINGTON AT WAR

Congress and the President fought the first skirmish over the Clean Water Bill. Ronald Reagan’s political clout is seriously diminished and public opinion backs the legislators--but the real winner won’t be known until next year’s election.

Congress and the President are at war. Hostilities broke out two days after the President’s State of the Union message, when Democratic leaders of Congress had what was described as a “frank and intense” meeting with President Reagan at the White House. As Reagan elaborated his argument for higher defense spending, he was interrupted by the new Speaker of the House of Representatives. “You just don’t understand the situation we confront,” said Rep. Jim Wright (D-Tex.). “As long as you stop confronting reality, the harder it’s going to be.”

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), the new Senate majority leader, tried to smooth things over by proposing a summit meeting where the President and congressional leaders would try to work out a compromise package of deficit-reduction measures. The President refused, insisting he had sent his budget proposal to Capitol Hill and was waiting for the Democrats to lay their cards on the table.

“What we saw is maybe the opening round of what the Democrats plan for the next two years,” said Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) after the session. “There’s going to be confrontation between the Democratic leadership and the President, and that’s all right with me,” the Senate minority leader added, speaking, perhaps, as a 1988 presidential hopeful.

Among the opening skirmishes of the War Between the Branches:

--Congress voted last week to override Reagan’s veto of the Clean Water Bill, thereby authorizing $20 billion for sewage treatment plants and other pollution-control programs. A majority of Republicans voted against the President.

--The House of Representatives has voted a $90-billion reauthorization of the federal highway program, including funding for mass-transit systems. The Senate is considering a $52.3-billion package, which the President still threatens to veto if it includes mass-transit funding.

--Members of Congress have bitterly attacked the Administration’s proposal to cut funds for anti-drug education by half. New York Sen. Alfonse D’Amato, a Republican, could barely control his outrage. “For God’s sake, get in the real world!” he admonished an Administration witness at a subcommittee hearing,

--Legislators have expressed support for a plan from Reagan’s secretary of health and human services, Dr. Otis R. Bowen, that would expand Medicare coverage to include catastrophic illnesses. Reagan is resisting Bowen’s proposal, which conversatives have denounced.

--Both houses of Congress have authorized an additional $50 million in aid for the homeless.

--The Senate is considering legislation that would compel the United States to observe the unratified 1979 strategic-arms treaty. Already 57 senators have signed a letter to Reagan urging he reverse his decision to exceed its limits.

What are the odds on the outcome? It’s a good bet that Congress will win most of the battles. Reagan is a lame-duck President whose political clout has been seriously diminished. Moreover, public opinion tends to support Congress’ position in most of these confrontations. When it comes to winning the war, however, all bets are off. The decision will come in 1988, when the voters will look at the big picture: not whether Congress did what they wanted, but whether the country is better off. In the war between the President and Congress, people know what Reagan is fighting for; he wants to protect his revolution. They are not so sure about Congress.

For six years, Reagan terrorized Congress. Drawing on his deep reservoir of public esteem and supported by a Republican majority in the Senate, Reagan prevailed even on unpopular issues. Now there is much less public esteem and no Republican majority. The public has decided to dock the President 20 points for the Iran fiasco, and they are waiting to find out if anyone in the Administration committed an indictable--or impeachable--offense. Every day seems to bring another resignation--national security adviser, press secretary, political director, communications director, CIA director--or news of infighting among those remaining. Reagan was jeered at twice in public last month, first by the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament and then by Democrats in the U.S. Congress during his State of the Union address. These days, Reagan doesn’t frighten anyone.

Even in his weakened state, however, the President is hanging tough. He is fighting for his ideological integrity. Reagan knows that, to conciliate the Democrats, he would have to compromise his legacy for the sake of--what? A minor reduction in the federal budget deficit, perhaps, until the Democrats found some new project to spend the money on.

Congress is fighting for its institutional integrity. It is reasserting its prerogatives, just as it did after Richard M. Nixon’s imperial presidency. In 1973 the 93rd Congress passed the War Powers Resolution requiring congressional consent for the use of military force, and in 1974 it passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, restoring congressional control over the budget. Now once again a Democratic Congress wants to “restore the balance” against a Republican President who has “gone too far.”

Since it is difficult for Congress to take the initiative on foreign policy, it will follow the strategy of resistance. The 100th Congress will oppose Reagan’s request for a 3% increase in defense spending over and above inflation. It will try to prevent the early deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative. And it will place severe restrictions on further military or economic aid to the contras.

On domestic policy, however, Democratic leaders have promised to be aggressive. Responding to the President’s State of the Union address, Wright said Congress would tackle the trade deficit, the farm problem and the declining quality of education. “Large majorities in both houses are determined to act,” the Speaker said.

A risky strategy for Congress? Not exactly. According to the latest Newsweek poll, a majority of voters now says Congress is more likely than the Administration to deal effectively with such problems as the deficit, unemployment and world trade. A rule of U.S. politics is that in order to get effective political action, two out of three political forces have to work together: the President, Congress and public opinion. From 1981 through 1986, Reagan could usually mobilize public opinion to get what he wanted out of Congress. In 1987 and 1988, Congress is more likely to mobilize public opinion in opposition to the President.

Come 1988, however, the focus of public attention will shift. If the situation in Central America has deteriorated, Congress may have to bear responsibility. If there is no progress toward an arms-control agreement, candidates may ask whether Congress has left the United States vulnerable by slowing down SDI. And if the federal budget deficit gets more out of control, people may begin to wonder whether the Democratic leadership’s “determination to act” made sense after all.

Unlike spending money on clean water, reducing the deficit involves hard choices: raising taxes or cutting defense spending or domestic programs. Congress is too politically sensitive to make those hard choices. The President won’t make those hard choices either--he sees no reason to compromise his ideological vision for the sake of political expediency. When the President said, “The federal deficit is outrageous,” he brought the Democrats in Congress to their feet. Now, as Reagan noted at the White House meeting, the country is waiting to see what kind of budget the Democrats will come up with.

The Republicans may try to run against the Democrats in 1988 by running against Congress. The behavior of the 100th Congress may prove that the Democrats really haven’t changed. They are still weak on defense and unable to resist big spending and, given the chance, high taxes. Look at Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The first thing he did on assuming the chairmanship was invite lobbyists to pay $10,000 each to have breakfast with him once a month. He quickly dropped the idea, but don’t they ever learn?

Running against Congress has worked in the past. In the 1946 midterm, the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 18 years. President Harry S. Truman’s popularity had collapsed to 32%, and almost no one expected him to win the presidency in his own right. To its credit, the 80th Congress went along with Truman’s bold new foreign-policy initiatives (the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan). But it fought him bitterly on domestic policy, where public opinion sided with Congress. The 80th Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Bill, which severely curtailed the activities of organized labor, over Truman’s veto. It also passed a tax cut over the President’s veto and denied the Truman standby authority to control wages and prices. In retribution for Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms, the 80th Congress passed a constitutional amendment limiting a President to two terms. The amendment was then ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures.

In 1948, the Republicans, confident of victory, nominated a ticket that included two moderate and popular governors, Thomas E. Dewey of New York and Earl Warren of California. Truman concentrated his fire on the “do-nothing, good-for-nothing, worst-ever 80th Congress.” He even called a special session of Congress and challenged it to produce serious legislation. Truman surprised everyone by winning the election and returning control of Congress to the Democrats. A key factor in Truman’s victory was his attack on the reactionary record of the 80th Congress, which, he claimed, showed the Republicans’ eagerness to undo the Roosevelt revolution.

The 100th Congress may offer an equally inviting target in 1988. In which case, more than a few Republicans will be eager to run against a “do-everything, budget-busting 100th Congress” that aims to undo the Reagan revolution and return to the days of high spending, high taxes, high inflation and low military security. What the Republicans need is a candidate who can “Give ‘em hell.”