With Mitchell, Democrats Find Effective Spokesman

For many Democrats, happy days are here again in the person of Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell. On such highly visible issues as the proposed capital-gains tax cut and the fledgling democracy movement spreading across Eastern Europe, the lean and reserved Maine Democrat is the long-pined-for articulator on where his party stands and how it differs from the GOP of George Bush.

Mitchell’s ideology is close to textbook liberalism. But the ex-federal judge’s lawyerly demeanor appears to have enhanced his effectiveness and appeal--at least in Congress and with the press--by masking partisanship.

By most accounts, Mitchell has comfortably moved into his new political role. In his first year as majority leader, he has also been feeling his way in the separate and frequently arduous legislative task of managing 99 unruly egos.

Although it is too early to measure Mitchell’s full impact, Bush conferred a backhanded compliment at his broadcast press conference on Election Day. In excoriating the Democratic-controlled Congress for its dismal performance in addressing his first-year agenda, the President made one notable exception. With Mitchell, said Bush, “there’s an honest difference of opinion on capital gains.”

As painful as the result has been for Bush, the capital-gains fight has made Mitchell something of a hero. Without his unyielding opposition to Bush’s initiative, the Senate almost surely would have followed in lock step behind the House’s approval of the tax cut in September.

Mitchell had an advantage: the Senate’s filibuster rule requires 60 senators to shut off extended debate. As Bush complained, his forces had the majority needed to pass the capital-gains bill, but they could not rally enough forces to compel the vote. Mitchell enjoyed no such parliamentary advantage in orchestrating two other critical setbacks for the President on Capitol Hill: rejection in March of the nomination of John G. Tower as defense secretary and last month’s defeat of the constitutional amendment to bar flag-burning.

Consistent with the axiom that “good politics” often is “no politics,” Mitchell--like a cardsharp poor-mouthing his own hand--downplays his own leadership in foiling Bush’s initiatives. These were not issues that “I went out and sought,” he said in an interview last week. “They were forced upon us by the Administration.”

Mitchell would rather talk about several legislative initiatives he has ushered through the Senate, often in the face of Administration opposition. Among them are tougher oil-spill liability standards, rural development, minimum wage--and a child-care bill that he trumpets as his chief accomplishment. The majority leader also likes to remind listeners that he cooperated this spring with Bush, to the chagrin of some Democrats, in early efforts to reach agreement on the budget and on humanitarian aid to the Contras. But such bipartisanship has been fleeting in the Senate, as was demonstrated anew in last week’s continuing conflict over the federal budget.

Mitchell’s differences have been chiefly with White House hard-liners, including Chief of Staff John H. Sununu and Office of Management and Budget Director Richard G. Darman, not with the more conciliatory Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.). Dole’s independence of Bush on both capital gains and budget is, in part, because “Dole wants to present an alternative Republican plan,” said an Administration official.

Whatever the reason, Mitchell is the beneficiary, and he is doing what he can to broaden his relationship with Dole. As a result, Dole has been less partisan in his approach to issues than in the past, according to a source close to the Democratic leader.

Despite his nonpartisan air and his friendship with Bush (they have shared weekend plane rides to Kennebunkport), Mitchell has been almost contemptuous of Bush’s cautiousness in foreign policy. On steps to encourage and strengthen Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s initiatives, aid to Poland and Hungary and Bush’s reluctance to criticize the Chinese crackdown in Tian An Men Square, Mitchell has called for more aggressive, more liberal U.S. actions.

As Mitchell has become more vocal, other Democratic senators have urged him to speak out even more and to move beyond what some Democrats earlier this year considered his own undue caution. Taking a tougher, more partisan approach has its own risks, but Mitchell appears willing--especially when he, the smart lawyer, knows he has a good case. Mitchell has ruled out, for example, any effort to cooperate with Bush next year on a budget “summit,” which some White House aides consider the only way to allow all sides to make the politically difficult choices in cutting the deficit.

Although he has sworn off a 1992 presidential bid, his legislative efforts and rhetoric could go a long way toward shaping the political environment of that contest. For the dogged and often underestimated Mitchell, the move to the center of the national political stage may know no bounds.