Bush Seeks Control of Agenda

WASHINGTON —  In a flurry of dramatic actions over the last week, President Bush has demonstrated again his determination to control the terms of political debate in Washington--even if that means sustained conflict with Democrats on Capitol Hill and a more polarized political environment in the country.

As if rolling siege guns into range, Bush on a virtually daily basis last week challenged congressional Democrats with his ambitious right-leaning proposals to redirect American energy policy, restructure Social Security and reorient America’s nuclear strategy around a national missile defense.

More sparks are likely this week as Bush unveils his first round of federal judicial appointments, a group expected to please conservatives.

By releasing all of these initiatives even as his budget and education bills move closer to congressional approval, Bush has underscored the priority he places on avoiding a vacuum that allows lawmakers in either party to shape the agenda in Washington.

“It seems to me they have decided to govern as if they won by 15 points,” says Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. “The issue is mastery--signaling who is in charge. What they’re looking to demonstrate is they are in control of the government and the agenda-setting process, and that may be one reason for hitting so many of these things [last] week.” This approach presents a marked contrast with Bush’s father, former President George Bush, who so often reacted to events that he was sometimes described as an “in-box” president. Indeed, it reaffirms the conviction among many observers that the most important lesson Bush took from his father’s defeat was the importance of controlling the agenda.

George W. Bush’s style also departs from the strategy of former President Clinton; compared to Clinton, Bush is addressing fewer issues--but often proposing more sweeping changes on those he tackles.

“After a year, you are going to see that he will dominate the debate more than Clinton did,” predicts one White House aide, who asked to remain anonymous while discussing administration strategy. “He is going to promote more things of fairly fundamental reform. . . . Clinton was much more hyperactive but much more reactive. Bush has a kind of persistence that Clinton didn’t have.”

What Bush shares with Clinton, though, is the underlying political reality of a Congress and country narrowly divided between the parties. And by identifying as his next round of priorities such conservative favorites as missile defense, partial privatization of Social Security and increased drilling for oil and gas on public lands, Bush has guaranteed himself a succession of heated conflicts with Democrats. “These are all the kind of things that Democrats will rise up against,” says Democratic pollster Peter Hart. “Politically, they give the Democrats an awful lot of good targets.” The continuing ambition of Bush’s agenda has defied the expectation of many analysts that he would move cautiously to build support after losing the popular vote and squeezing into office with the second-narrowest electoral college majority ever. These ideas reflect the contrasting White House belief that the best way for Bush to exert a mandate is to assert a mandate.

“They are testing the hypothesis that you can build your mandate after the election,” says Buchanan.

Bush’s early success in shaping the agenda also has inspired grumbling among Democratic activists worried that the party has been forced into an overly reactive posture. One small but telling symbol came Saturday. For the first time, Bush delivered a version of his radio address in Spanish, celebrating the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo; congressional Democrats then announced that they would deliver a version of their weekly radio address in Spanish not only Saturday but every week.

Except perhaps in education--where Democrats have successfully injected a demand for more funding--on most issues the debate in Washington has been about how far to move in the direction Bush prefers. Not surprisingly, given the GOP control over the White House and both congressional chambers, Democrats have had difficulty sustaining focus on their competing ideas.

Bush’s determination to set the agenda hasn’t allowed him to simply impose his will on the closely divided Congress. On almost every major issue, he’s been forced to give ground.

The tax cut Congress will take up this week is about 20% smaller than Bush proposed over 10 years. On the education bill the Senate is now considering, the left has stripped out Bush’s voucher proposal while conservatives have diluted his testing plan. The concessions have cumulated to the point where some reformers lament that the overall plan is unlikely to generate more than modest change.

“The headline over this bill should be the triumph of the status quo,” says Chester E. Finn, a Republican education expert. “I don’t think the president has gotten much other than a bill to sign.”

On the environment too, Bush has been compelled to soften his tone. After reversing several Clinton environmental decisions in March, the administration upheld a succession of them in April. On Friday, the Agriculture Department announced that it would amend, rather than reverse, a Clinton administration policy to preserve roadless areas in 58.5 million acres of national forests.

Yet Bush has already shown that a hallmark of his presidency is a determination to continue pushing his ideas, often down new roads, even after he hits a wall of resistance. Supporters say that strategy has allowed him to shift the entire frame of debate in his direction, even when he can’t win everything he wants. Though he could not pass the entire $1.6-trillion tax cut he endorsed, for instance, his insistence on that number probably pulled centrist Democrats toward a larger reduction than they would have considered earlier.

Nor has Bush conceded the argument on the environment. Vice President Dick Cheney indicated last week that the administration’s energy plan will court confrontation with Democrats and environmentalists by placing the greatest emphasis on expanding production--through more drilling on public lands, greater use of coal and even renewed reliance on nuclear power. Even on the forest lands, the administration signaled that it would give local officials and commercial interests a greater opportunity to challenge roadless designations in particular national forests.

Bush’s other announcements also suggest his early bruises on taxes and education haven’t scared him away from confrontation. Twice he drew bright lines of division, announcing plans to build a missile defense system far more comprehensive than Clinton proposed and establishing a commission to restructure Social Security by allowing workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts, an idea anathema to almost all Democrats.

Similarly, White House officials are already hinting that they may try to separately pass additional tax cuts--such as enhanced tax breaks for retirement savings--that add to the price tag of the $1.25-trillion reduction approved in the budget package.

Political strategists for both parties insist they see advantages for their side in Bush’s bright-line strategy. Almost uniformly, Republicans are cheered that he is aggressively defining the party, neutralizing traditional Democratic advantages in some areas (such as education) while consolidating the GOP base with his strong conservative tilt on such issues as Social Security, taxes and missile defense.

“For our party and our president, fighting about big ideas is a hell of a lot better than status quo, inching-forward government,” says GOP pollster Bill McInturff.

But Democrats believe that Bush’s strategy is polarizing the electorate and creating hurdles for the GOP with centrist swing voters, particularly on issues like the environment. “His objective has been to cover himself on the right,” says Hart. “And while stylistically he may [appeal] to a lot to voters in the middle and even moderate Democrats, my sense is his policy actions open up a lot of vulnerable fronts.”