11/11/00 10:55 a.m.
Election 2000: Implications for Congress
It could be a great opportunity for conservatives.

By Michael G. Franc, vice president for government relations,
Heritage Foundation

f you thought things were tough on Capitol Hill these last few years, you ain't seen nothing yet. First, a few observations about the likely tone and tenor of the next Congress, and then some thoughts about the real opportunities conservatives may enjoy in the years ahead.

The Senate
The most significant change comes in the Senate and, specifically, among Senate Democrats. The Kennedy-Wellstone caucus will be welcoming several new card-carrying members: Senators Clinton (NY), Dayton (MN), Corzine (NJ), Carnahan (MO), and Stabenow (MI). Incoming Delaware Senator Tom Carper, moreover, may obtain a limited membership in the club, if his lifetime ACU rating during his ten-year House career (a paltry 22 percent) is any indication of how he will vote in the Senate.

Not to be too pessimistic, but consider the following thought experiment. Senate rules require 60-vote majorities to surmount procedural obstacles such as filibusters. Thus, any determined minority of 41 senators enjoys enormous influence over the Senate's day-to-day activities. Work your way through the roster of senators in the incoming Congress, starting with the most liberal.

There are many aspirants for the throne, including Kennedy, Rockefeller, Wellstone, Boxer, and, of course, Clinton. When you arrive at the 41st least liberal senator, it is that individual whom Majority Leader Trent Lott must satisfy on a daily basis if he is to accomplish anything of substance. From a conservative perspective, it is not a pretty sight. Using the American Conservative Union's 2000 ratings as a rough guide, this potential "kingmaker" will be a senator with a voting record slightly to the right of Ted Kennedy (MA), Chuck Schumer (NY), and Carl Levin (MI), and to the left of California's senior senator Dianne Feinstein.

The House
With the balance of power in the House remaining the same, expect two more years of World War I-style trench warfare. The committee ratios of Republicans and Democrats will narrow slightly, the margin for error on any given floor vote for Majority Whip Tom DeLay will shrink to nearly zero, and the negotiating clout of Republican moderates and so-called New Democrats will increase commensurately.

Chalk up one clear advantage for the Republicans, however. Six years in the majority has given them invaluable experience in managing the daily chaos. There is some evidence that they have learned how use their control of the floor and committee schedules to negotiate the shoals of the legislative process and send substantive bills to the president.

True, their execution in these areas often leaves conservatives frustrated, but House leaders have shepherded a number of significant bills through this quagmire — bills to eliminate the marriage penalty and death tax and the ban on partial-birth abortion, for example.

Equally important, they have postponed the day of reckoning or muted the effects of legislative nightmares such as the Patient's Bill of Rights, a job-killing increase in the minimum wage, and an inadequate, one-size-fits-all prescription-drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.

Speaking of prescriptions, is this a prescription for endless legislative gridlock? Not necessarily, and this is where the new president comes in.

The President
Should Governor Bush ultimately receive that 271st electoral vote, he will enter office in a crisis situation. But, as we know from our history, crises are the breeding ground for national heroes. True, this particular crisis does not rise to the level of the Civil War or the Great Depression. But it does give a President Bush a golden opportunity to establish a positive and lasting first impression as a unifying national figure. This invaluable reservoir of good will would serve him well during his first year in office, especially to the extent that it translates into a more balanced national discussion of his conservative policy ideas.

The white noise of the campaign prevented millions of voters from hearing a fair and balanced description of Bush's message that the government must trust ordinary Americans to make basic decisions about their lives. Bush could use this unique moment to jumpstart a national debate, both on and off Capitol Hill, over the merits of educational choice, personal retirement accounts in Social Security, and across-the-board tax cuts with no strings attached.

Millions of voters, especially African-Americans, will be pleasantly surprised by what they learn. They will be even more surprised to learn who in Washington favors their preferred solution. For example, does anyone really believe that all of Al Gore's African-American supporters (over 90 percent of all African-Americans) oppose Gov. Bush's proposal to offer opportunity scholarships to poor kids trapped in failing and dangerous schools? With polls indicating that over two-thirds of these voters support this concept, the answer is a resounding "no."

The same holds true for Bush's proposal to allow workers to open personal Social Security accounts with a portion of their payroll taxes and accumulate real financial assets for their retirements and leave these estates to their spouses and children. One hopes that eight years in the political wilderness has not caused Hill conservatives to forget about the power of the presidential soapbox to shape and ultimately control these debates. After all, President Clinton used that soapbox relentlessly to do just that on issue after issue.

Is this wishful thinking? Maybe. But let's not forget that President Reagan managed to cut taxes, revive the economy, and rebuild our national defenses during the 1980s. He did so, let's remember, in spite of the determined opposition of liberal Congressional leaders such as Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright, and the powerful and savvy cohort of Watergate babies who were in the prime of their legislative careers. Is it too much to hope for similar achievements, should conservatives control both the presidency and both chambers of Congress for the first time in 46 years?