The morning after:
knives or negotiation?

Both the Republicans and Clinton may find compromise the safer route

Washington, D.C. —
Over $1 billion was spent on the presidential and congressional elections of 1996 and we are back to where we started: a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling Congress. So what comes now?

In his Little Rock victory speech, President Clinton called for bipartisan cooperation. There are even hints he might appoint a Republican to the Cabinet or give Bob Dole some honorary position. Is such cooperation possible? Or, on his night of triumph, was Clinton suffering from delusions of compromise?

It depends on what lessons Newt Gingrich draws from his own near-death experience. Weeks ago, Republicans were worried that they might be swept from the House. They have survived handily, albeit with a smaller majority. Might this not embolden Gingrich and his comrades, who can boast that the House Republicans surmounted a strong challenge from the Democrats and their allies in organized labor, the environmental community and pro-choice groups? Or will they conclude that the Republicans survived only because they backed away from the extremist rhetoric — and continue on a kinder, gentler, non-revolutionary path?

Gingrich has not bothered to call me to let me in on his thinking. But it is important to note that both Clinton and the House Republicans fared better when they downsized. The President entered office with an ambitious agenda, much of which he bungled, and paid dearly in the mid-term elections. After that, he coopted G.O.P. rhetoric about the end of big government and found success with a strategy that defended pre-existing liberal programs from Republican attack and proposed dozens and dozens of small-scale initiatives. Gingrich, when he took up the Speaker's gavel in 1994, travelled a similar path. His grand schemes to destroy Washington (in order to save it) flamed out, and he became the most unpopular political figure on the national stage. By toning down the rhetoric, yielding to Clinton on key portions of the budget fight, and hunkering down to pass a few pieces of bipartisan legislation, he saved Republican incumbents who looked headed for sure defeat.

Accommodation has worked well for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, achieving what incumbents appreciate most: reelection. And it is the Republicans — not Clinton — who have to face voters again in two years. Will their prospects be buoyed by passing legislation in cooperation with Clinton or by mud-wrestling with him?

Then there is the Trent Lott factor. An ambitious fellow, he presides over an increased GOP majority in the Senate. Lott, from Mississippi, has the reputation of a sharp-edged, highly-partisan conservative. But during the final rounds of this year's budget squabble, his fellow Senate Republicans groused that Lott was giving in too much to the White House. As one of the few major political players in town who is relatively untarnished, could he be thinking about the 2000 presidential campaign?

The buzz in Washington, and around the world (judging from all the calls I've received all day from foreign journalists), is that Clinton is about to enter a thresher of investigations that will turn him into presidential mincemeat, that the Republicans are poised to investigate every time he did not place enough postage on a piece of mail. But there may be some reluctance about going overboard. Gingrich himself faces a widened investigation into allegations of his own ethical misdeeds, which certainly makes it harder for him to act as Torquemada.

The Senate Whitewater hearings offer further cautionary notes to Republicans gung-ho to grill Clintonites 24 hours a day in front of C-SPAN cameras. Apart from exposing very little, they did not help the GOP win the White House. The chairman of those hearings, Senator Al D'Amato (R-N.Y.), now has the highest negative ratings in the entire Senate.

What about campaign finance and the "Asian connection"? Such scandals reflect poorly on both parties. The Republicans will have a tough time running an investigation that only addresses improprieties among Democratic fundraisers. Already, Common Cause has asked Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint an independent counsel that would examine the fundraising practices of both parties.

My guess is that there is no set gameplan yet for the Republicans. Much will depend on what policy proposals come out of the White House — do the Republicans really want to block a tax credit for college tuition? — and what, if anything at all, emerges from independent counsel Kenneth Starr's snooping and ongoing press inquiries into Democratic campaign activities. After all the spending, the shouting and the punditry, the results of this billion-dollar campaign do not tell us much about what will come next.

David Corn, a regular contributor to Salon, is Washington editor of The Nation. He can be reached at dacor@aol.com.