Which George Bush will show up in January? The president who worked with Democrats as governor of Texas and during his first year in Washington? Or the hard-edged ideologue who ignored the minority party over the last five years and told voters that if the Democrats win, “the terrorists win and America loses.”
And which Nancy Pelosi will take over as speaker? Will it be the representative from San Francisco, the partisan warrior who welded Democrats into a highly disciplined anti-Bush guerilla force? Or will it be Nancy D’Alesandro from Baltimore, who learned the arts of governing and consensus-building from her late father, the mayor of her hometown?
The stakes are huge. Voters sent a clear distress signal. They hate the unending and unwinnable war in Iraq. And they want action on a long list of neglected domestic issues: the retirement of the baby boomers, the influx of immigrants, the underinsurance of America’s families and the over-reliance on foreign oil.
None of these problems can be solved without a return to what Hillary Clinton calls the “vital dynamic center.” The national interest demands that the current president and future speaker resurrect the most essential word in the political lexicon – compromise.
Don’t bet on it. Both leaders will have to fend off purists in their own ranks who believe that compromise equals betrayal. Bush did the right thing in calling Pelosi and inviting her to lunch, but real cooperation has to go well beyond polite gestures. It will take an enormous act of statesmanship to get the two sides to the peace table, as opposed to the dining table, and the process of reconciliation has to start with the president.
He sets the tone of the capital, and it’s been encouraging in recent days to hear his spokesman, Tony Snow, talk about the president’s wish to “detoxify American politics.” As he told Time magazine on the eve of the election: “You want people to stop calling each other names and do the people’s business.... The president has always tried to extend a hand to people on both sides of the aisle, and he’ll continue to do so.”
But the president has been Name Caller-in-Chief. He and his allies have tried to bury Democrats, not bargain with them. House leaders totally excluded Democrats from the legislative process and the Senate leader, Bill Frist, broke with tradition two years ago and campaigned directly (and successfully) to unseat the top Senate Democrat, Tom Daschle.
So what really will change beyond the language? On Iraq, the president has yet to show a glimmer of self-doubt. Sure, he dropped the phrase “stay the course,” but Vice President Dick Cheney said just before the election it was “full speed ahead.”
What’s the difference? Does the president listen to Cheney or to the voters? Does he remain convinced he’s right, or does he recognize reality and admit his war plan is not working?
