Right Wing Seeks Bold Bid by Bush on Domestic Issues

As President Bush turns from the triumph of the Persian Gulf War to the challenges of America’s domestic problems, he faces a potential collision not just with the Democratic majority in Congress but with the conservative wing of his own party.

Some Republicans believe Bush’s dramatic success in the Gulf has given him an opportunity to force a showdown with the Democrats on domestic policy and, in the process, win a dramatic expansion of GOP congressional strength in 1992.

And Bush this week called on Congress to enact his legislative agenda with the sort of dedication and efficiency that American forces showed in crushing Saddam Hussein.

But any such climactic showdown on domestic issues faces major obstacles. Many political analysts question whether Bush will even try very hard to carry it off.

First, Bush’s agenda for tackling the nation’s domestic problems is far from bold.

Second, his personal strength among voters and his deeply ingrained tendencies toward moderation and compromise make him more reluctant to draw a line on the floor of the House or Senate than in the sands of Arabia.

“We ought to put Democrats in the position where they either pass the President’s agenda or they prove publicly that they are against the future,” House GOP Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) declared recently in an interview.

As a hard-line conservative, Gingrich wants Bush to provoke a showdown with congressional Democrats that would sharpen the division between the two major parties and help sweep more GOP candidates to victory in 1992.

Bush’s past behavior, however, as well as his recent policy pronouncements, suggests that his post-Gulf presidency will follow the pattern established in his first two years--advocacy of modest goals at home, with most of his activism reserved for the global scene.

The fiery Gingrich recommends that Bush adopt the aggressive strategy Harry S. Truman pursued before the 1948 election to push for his liberal domestic proposals. “Truman had an agenda and had proven conclusively that the Republicans in Congress wouldn’t pass his agenda.” he said. “And his party picked up 76 House seats and nine Senate seats.”

But, unlike Truman, who branded the Republican-controlled 80th Congress as “do-nothing,” Bush prefers to operate as a conciliator, not a slasher. He has gone out of his way to foster good relations with Democratic lawmakers. And he clearly enjoyed the warm bipartisan welcome he received Wednesday night when he addressed Congress, at the invitation of Democratic leaders.

Rather than confronting today’s Democrats the way Truman did with the GOP lawmakers, Bush prides himself on forging alliances, just as he created the international coalition that defeated Iraq.

“He has shown a capacity for building and keeping coalitions together,” said Roger P. Porter, Bush’s domestic policy chief. Porter cited the bipartisan coalition that hammered out last year’s thorny budget compromise and predicted that Bush will use similar tactics in this year’s congressional session.

Unlike his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, Bush appears to see no urgent need for the kind of fundamental change that would make conservative hearts beat faster and sharpen the distinctions between the GOP and the Democrats.

“This is a guy who thinks, ‘When a problem comes to the in box, then I’ll deal with it,’ ” said one former Reagan adviser who has known Bush for more than a decade. “This is a guy who sees himself as managing the government, not rebuilding the country.”

Conservatives wonder whether Bush has the vision or the determination to advance their causes.

“You have to give voters something they can whistle, something they can hum,” right-wing direct mail specialist Richard A. Viguerie said. What the Bush agenda needs, Viguerie argues, is more emphasis on “the idea of individual responsibility and limited government, not just a little capital gains reduction here and there, but a big picture like Reagan had.”

As evidence of Bush’s lack of enthusiasm for domestic policy, critics cite the timing and content of his first address on postwar domestic proposals, delivered last week, just a few hours before he announced the end of the Mideast war. It consisted mainly of familiar proposals, repackaged under the rubric of “opportunity and choice,” favorite buzzwords for conservatives, but it was drowned out by the jubilation over the triumph in the Mideast.

“(The Bush Administration)) put out that domestic policy speech on a day when nobody cared,” said conservative analyst and former Nixon campaign strategist Kevin Phillips. “It was obviously not a high priority for them and not taken as significant by anybody else.”

Bush did little to change that impression by the way he listed his proposals for clean air, energy, child care, drugs, civil rights, crime, education and transportation in his nationally televised speech Wednesday night, according to Bruce Jentleson, director of the Washington Center of UC Davis.

“It was another rendition of a laundry list,” Jentleson said.

Bush declared: “If our forces could win the ground war in 100 hours, then surely the Congress can pass this legislation in 100 days. Let that be a promise we make tonight to the American people.”

But, Jentleson said, Bush offered “no plan of action” and few specifics.

Democrats seemed unimpressed. When asked about Bush’s 100-day time frame, Rep. Dave McCurdy (D-Okla.), wisecracked, “He may have to do an air campaign first.”

“I still think conservation ought to be part of any energy plan,” Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said. Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) said of Bush’s civil rights proposal: “There is a disagreement as to what the best approach is. I would hope we could work it out.”

“It’s sort of a mixed bag,” Kate Walsh O’Beirne, vice president for government relations of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, said of the President’s domestic program.

“He can be bolder,” she said. “Take his crime package,” she said, referring to Bush’s stiff proposal, which includes expansion of capital punishment to 30 more offenses. “He ought to signal to the Democrats that it’s non-negotiable.”

But, as O’Beirne concedes, that is not the way Bush usually operates. She recalled that, last month, when he announced his plan for switching federal programs to the states in the interest of flexibility and efficiency, he had identified $20-billion worth of programs for potential transfer but said he would be willing to limit the plan to only $15 billion.

“He immediately signaled that he’s willing to compromise,” she said.

Some conservatives contend that such a cautious strategy may represent a risk in itself. “Popularity is an opportunity,” said former Delaware Gov. Pierre S. (Pete) du Pont, one of Bush’s sharpest critics on the right. “If you don’t use it, it evaporates.”

“We made a terrible mistake on the (1990) budget bill, by raising taxes and spending,” said Du Pont, who is viewed by some as a GOP presidential possibility for the future, perhaps even as a challenger to Bush in 1992. “Here’s a chance for the President to recoup some of that by saying it’s time for a program of tax cuts to get the economy expanding again. And I think that, with all his enhanced prestige, he could get it through.”

Unless the economy falls apart, however, most analysts feel Bush has little to fear. The Democrats are inhibited by the restraints of the budget agreement from pushing through bold initiatives of their own. And Bush’s masterful management of the Mideast crisis has made it hard for them to challenge him on foreign policy.

For now, many feel that Bush’s reluctance to depart far from the status quo matches the public mood.

“The Republican right wing has a road map to go in one direction, and the Democrats have a road map to go in another,” said Bert Rockman, Brookings Institution fellow and co-editor of a forthcoming book on the Bush presidency. “But there’s no consensus in the country to go off in any direction at all.”