Make Room for More Than Party Faithful : Clinton: There are many able Republicans whose talents would enhance his credibility, especially in foreign policy.

President-elect Bill Clinton speaks of an administration in which there is room not only for his party faithful, but for Republicans and independents as well. That is an attractive vision for Americans weary of the partisan excesses of recent years.

To shape a more inclusive team will be a daunting challenge for the governor, for it will require him to base appointments on a larger strategic concept than rewarding loyalists. In considering whether to invite others to join him, Clinton will find that many who were not prepared to help him succeed as a candidate are more than ready to help him succeed as President. Particularly in foreign policy, the precedents are imposing and the possibilities are impressive.

Franklin D. Roosevelt showed how valuable the bipartisan option could be when, with war looming in Europe, he created a government of national unity to meet the threat. In 1940 he brought into his Cabinet two distinguished Republicans, Frank Knox and Henry Stimson, and turned over to them the critical portfolios of the Navy and War departments.

The F.D.R. model must have been on John F. Kennedy’s mind when he asked Republican Douglas Dillon to be Treasury secretary. In building his national security team he went further, turning to Stimson’s scholar-colleague, McGeorge Bundy, to direct the National Security Council staff and to Ford executive Robert McNamara to head the Defense Department. Also worthy of note was his selection of Eisenhower Defense Department official William Foster to lead the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from controversial infancy into productive maturity. Those appointments bolstered both congressional and public confidence that the young President was a reliable steward of the national interest.

More recently, the practice of enlisting leaders from the other party has attenuated, but not died. Richard Nixon sought to persuade Sen. Henry Jackson to become secretary of defense and earned credit for trying. He also called on Democrats Paul Nitze and Harold Brown as important figures in strategic arms negotiation. Perhaps the most notable instances in the Reagan-Bush years were the roles of Max Kampelman, Hubert Humphrey’s associate of many years, as the chief diplomat in the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START); James Woolsey, Jimmy Carter’s Navy undersecretary, as conventional arms negotiator, and Robert Strauss--Mr. Democrat himself--as ambassador to Russia.

Gauged by the rank and influence of appointees, it is fair to say that Democratic presidents have practiced bipartisanship more earnestly than Republicans. A Republican dissident once urged a young friend to remain in the party by arguing that “Republicans have a greater need for independent minds--and the Democrats are more forgiving.” Perhaps that owes something to the fact that, blessed almost always with fraternal majorities in Congress, Democratic presidents have felt less compulsion to surround themselves exclusively with fellow partisans.

Any President who comes to office with only a plurality of popular votes may well ponder adding a few members of the loyal opposition to strengthen his capacity to govern. If Clinton’s instincts run in this direction, the talent pool is extraordinary.

Serious people have pointed out the advantages of asking former Secretary of State James A. Baker III to carry forward the Middle East peace process he launched. Apart from the continuity and steady hand such service would provide, Baker’s presence would help shield Clinton against doubts that he can sustain the balanced U.S. role that is essential on this front.

Other candidates to anchor the domestic consensus on U.S. foreign policy include two of the ablest senators, Richard Lugar of Indiana and William Cohen of Maine. Beyond his experience as former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Lugar displayed statecraft of a high order in pressing Ferdinand Marcos to relinquish power in the Philippines. Time and again, as in his collaboration with Sen. Sam Nunn and Rep. Les Aspin to focus attention on the urgency of aid to the disintegrating Soviet Union, Lugar has been a bridge builder between the parties.

Cohen is fiercely independent and a prodigious worker. He was a determined protector of constitutional integrity against executive breaches within his own party. The Maine legislator’s labors in the Armed Services and Intelligence committees have made him a master of both the substance and the politics that will confront the next defense secretary.

In the House, Jim Leach of Iowa typifies a breed of Republican who would be congenial to the new Administration. His experience in Congress and earlier as a Foreign Service officer have equipped him well to represent the country at the United Nations or to oversee the reform of the ramshackle foreign assistance program.

Among the most eminent names in the roster is that of former senator and White House chief of staff Howard Baker. At the State Department or in another role, the Tennessean could add savvy and stature to any government. The list could go on.

Would these or other prominent Republicans play on the Clinton team? There is only one way to find out. A wholesome bipartisanship will rest on shared power.