Bork Battle’s Tone Viewed as Pattern for Rest of 1987

The apparent defeat of Judge Robert H. Bork as a Supreme Court nominee is being viewed on Capitol Hill as a clear demonstration of President Reagan’s rapidly declining effectiveness in dealing with a highly partisan, Democratic-controlled Congress.

And unlike Reagan’s previous legislative setbacks, the Bork affair appears to have set a nasty, confrontational tone in the dialogue between Congress and the President that is likely to be repeated in forthcoming battles later this year over taxes, defense spending, arms control and aid for the Nicaraguan resistance.

“There is a real confrontation going on between the President and Congress,” said Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), who compares the current standoff to the post-Watergate period when a Democratic Congress challenged President Gerald R. Ford at every turn.

“Clearly, we are in a period of legislative gridlock because of an unwillingness by either side to compromise on these issues. The Democrats are already waging a campaign for control of the White House.”

Parties Look to Election

Of course, it is not surprising that a two-term President--even one as popular as Ronald Reagan--would begin to lose his grip on Congress as both parties begin looking to the next presidential election. And yet Reagan’s legislative clout appears to have taken an unusually sharp nose dive, beginning last April when Congress overrode his veto of a highway bill.

“The Bork nomination is indicative of a general decline in his ability to convince Congress to do what he wants,” said Assistant Senate Majority Leader Alan Cranston (D-Calif.). “Iran- contra was the first big blow, and it has been downhill since then.”

If Reagan’s hand was weakened by the Iran-contra affair, critics contend that the President himself also has contributed to his current troubles with Congress by continuing to press a highly controversial legislative agenda--including continued aid for the contras and fending off a tax increase--that had been difficult to attain even in the halcyon days of this Administration.

“What we’ve seen is the President of the United States all this year trying to hit a home run,” said Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced). “He refuses to acknowledge that the Iran-contra affair has hurt him. He’s gone for the long ball, and he’s struck out. If you lose, your stature is decreased substantially. It is perceived in this town that he is losing ground.”

Even many Republicans share Coelho’s analysis. A House Republican leadership aide, who declined to be identified, summed up the current attitude at the White House as: “We’re not going for wins; we’re going for the moral high ground.”

As Democrats view it, the Bork nomination failed because Reagan was going for an ideological “home run” in selecting an unorthodox candidate for the Supreme Court. Bork is among the most strident and articulate proponents of the Administration’s controversial view that an activist, liberal court had distorted the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

“It was a sure loser from the start,” Cranston said. “You can’t alter the record of Robert Bork over the last 25 years.”

Nevertheless, Reagan supporters claim the Democrats defeated Bork by making it an unusually partisan issue--setting a precedent that will come back to haunt the next Democratic President when he tries to nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court.

“The big loser is Abner Mikva,” said Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), referring to the well-known liberal Democratic appeals court judge who has long been viewed as the leading candidate for the Supreme Court under a Democratic Administration. “If he gets up there with a Democratic President, the same lynching bee will take place with a vengeance. It will be sheer politics from now on.”

But Democrats contend that Reagan’s nominee would have been confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate if he had been a mainstream Republican conservative, and that Reagan can easily succeed if his next Supreme Court nominee is a more traditional jurist.

Whatever the reasons for the outcome, the Bork nomination clearly has left both the President and the Democrats embittered by the experience. And even if Reagan’s next Supreme Court nominee sails through the Senate--as some are predicting--it has set the stage for an even more divisive showdown between Democrats and Reagan’s conservative supporters later this year on a variety of other issues.

Republicans who have met with Reagan in recent days said he was deeply angered by the loss. GOP conservatives shared his feelings of frustration. It was this anger, in part, that led to White House reluctance to withdraw the nomination, even after more than 51 senators announced their intention to vote against it.

“I have never been this angry before,” said Sen. Jake Garn (R-Utah).

Democrats, meanwhile, feel unfairly maligned by the Republican criticism of their tactics. Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) issued a statement Thursday condemning the “highly negative, personal comments” directed at Democrats.

“They are another example of the divisiveness that this nomination has created,” he said.

Personal Attack by Gramm

Byrd apparently was referring to a statement by Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), who alluded to the college records of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Bork’s chief opponents, by saying: “The American people know what the people who cheated in college think.”

On other issues dividing Congress and the President, Democrats complain the President has been equally confrontational. Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) contends that the White House no longer tries to work out a reasonable compromise with the Congress.

“The President has tended to take himself out of negotiations with Congress,” Johnston said. “You don’t discuss the budget with anyone from the White House. Instead, you are left to read about their positions in the newspaper.”

Without a willingness to discuss compromise at the White House, Republican leaders in Congress have been left to devise their own strategy on a wide variety of controversial issues. And many individual Republicans have decided to vote as they please on these issues--making it harder for the Republican leadership to enforce party discipline.

“What most of our folks have decided is that it’s time to go your own way,” said a House Republican leadership aide. “Does that diminish our effectiveness? Yes, it does. (But) we’re resigned to what the next eight or nine months are going to hold.”

The most obvious example of Reagan’s “home run” strategy with Congress is his demand for continuing military assistance to the contras. Even though he has been told repeatedly by leaders of both parties that Congress will not approve new aid for the contras as long as Nicaragua continues to support the Central American peace process, Reagan announced just last week that he will soon request an additional $270 million.

As with the Bork nomination, Reagan is pursuing his request for more contra aid at the behest of conservatives, who view support for the Nicaraguan resistance as a good issue for raising money and rallying conservative voters--even if Congress rejects it.

Reagan and Congress also are heading for a showdown later this year over testing of the President’s “Star Wars” space-based missile defense system. Both the House and Senate have banned “Star Wars” testing on grounds it violates the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The President has pledged to veto the restrictions on “Star Wars,” but Democrats in Congress have vowed to hold Pentagon funding hostage until the President agrees to the restriction.

Faces Unpleasant Choice

Likewise, despite Reagan’s stern opposition to taxes, Congress is likely to give him legislation later this year that includes about $12 billion in new taxes. That will leave Reagan with the unpleasant choice of accepting either a tax increase or the automatic Gramm-Rudman spending cuts, including a significant cut in defense.

Even faced with these alternatives, the President appears unwilling to compromise. “He’ll continue to fight,” Cochran predicted. “I don’t think he’ll give up on his principles.”