NATION: A Mandate for Gridlock?

The election was as significant for what it did not do as for what it did.

Here’s what didn’t happen: Until recently, the Republicans believed that they might ride the coattails of an historically popular President to historic midterm gains. That didn’t occur. Until recently, Democrats believed they could ride public distaste for the budget fiasco to a midterm landslide. Obviously, that didn’t happen, either. The Democrats managed an historically unexceptional gain of one seat in the Senate and nine in the House. And three of the party’s leading presidential hopefuls--New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley and Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt--received only slim majorities.

Here’s what did happen: President Bush suffered a series of defeats. Four of the GOP candidates for whom he campaigned hardest--Florida’s Bob Martinez, Texas’ Clayton W. Williams Jr., Minnesota’s Rudy Boschwitz and Hawaii’s Patricia Saiki--lost. Of course, the President also campaigned for Pete Wilson and Jesse Helms. However, Wilson, who voted against the bipartisan budget agreement, made a point of distancing himself from Bush on the question of higher taxes; Helms went on to exploit the President’s veto of the Civil Rights Act to help legitimize his overtly racist campaign against black Democrat Harvey Gantt, thereby converting one of Bush’s few successes into an embarrassment.

The consequences of all this are likely to exacerbate Washington’s governmental gridlock. The Democrats have an unshakeable legislative majority, but cannot do as much as they would like with it because of Bush’s extraordinarily successful use of the veto. Since taking office, the President has vetoed 15 bills. Traditionally, about one-third of all presidential vetoes are overridden; Bush has been sustained every time. Administration officials say privately that Tuesday’s results probably mean Bush will make even greater use of the veto in the two years ahead.

The Democrats hoped to pick up enough new seats to end the President’s “government by veto.” They did not. Now their strategists say they will attempt to capitalize on Bush’s perceived weakness and win over enough GOP congressional moderates to override at least some vetoes. To do that, they will have to attack Bush’s personal conduct of his presidency--as the Republicans did during the Carter Administration. Remember that a failing presidency tempts a lot of people to free lance.

There you have it: an angry electorate, an immobile Congress, an uncertain President. An alchemy capable of transmuting them into effective government would require either statesmanship or a miracle--and in the current political context that may be a distinction without a difference.