by Steven V. Roberts; Kenneth T. Walsh; Dorian Friedman
One message from the voters was clear even before their ballots were counted: Many Americans are tired of the petty political bickering and ideological warfare that infected the last session of Congress and many campaign commercials this fall, and they long for leaders who want to solve problems, not just score points. So while this week's election may leave the Congress more polarized than ever between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, some lawmakers in both parties are hoping to prove that the center can hold, and perhaps even lead. That won't be easy.
Political gamesmanship, never far off stage in Washington, will come roaring back as the 1996 presidential campaign gathers speed, starting this week. Still, the next Congress is not likely to accomplish much without bipartisan compromise. The only alternative, says Republican strategist Vin Weber, is two years of "trench warfare" that further alienates voters. "What happens here is transparent to most people," says Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat. "It's a meaningless tit-for-tat tug of war. And that's clearly part of why the public is so frustrated and angry with us."
Lieberman is onto something, and it extends far beyond Congress into the nation's statehouses and city halls. In a recent U.S. News poll, 4 out of 5 respondents said the government serves the special interests, not the people; 2 out of 3 said government causes problems instead of solving them. Along with this sour view comes a growing independence: Only 1 in 3 voters identifies strongly with either major party, and fewer than 1 in 5 votes a straight ticket. Says GOP pollster Frank Luntz: "It's getting more and more difficult to sell an overtly partisan message."
The strain is taking a toll on both political parties. Many Democratic candidates turned their backs on President Clinton this fall, and a series of prominent Republicans -- including Mayors Rudolph Giuliani of New York and Richard Riordan of Los Angeles -- endorsed Democrats for statewide office. Republican conservatives Jack Kemp and William Bennett have attacked California's Proposition 187, which would deny state services to illegal immigrants, even though the GOP's Senate and gubernatorial candidates support it. Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner campaigned against Oliver North, his party's nominee for the state's other Senate seat. Teresa Heinz, widow of the late Sen. John Heinz, a Republican moderate from Pennsylvania, attacked GOP Senate candidate Rick Santorum, calling him "incapable of compromise."
The pox-on-both-your-houses mood has produced another flurry of interest in third parties and independent candidates. Ross Perot, whose presidential candidacy won 19 percent of the vote in 1992, is stumping again this fall, and other independent candidates abound -- in New York, Maine, Virginia, Hawaii and elsewhere. Some academics argue that a constituency is growing for a new party that favors social tolerance, lower taxes and a tougher stance on crime.
Middle road. But third parties and independent candidates have not fared well in America, and it is too soon to write off the two-party system. Six Republican governors, in states from Massachusetts to Minnesota, are easily bucking the anti- incumbency trend, largely because they have found a pragmatic middle ground between doctrinaire liberalism and conservatism. "People want less government but they do want good government," says GOP strategist William Kristol.
Even Democrats like White House adviser Tony Coelho say these "pragmatic Republicans are what the American people are looking for," and they could serve as role models for problem solving on the state and local level. Many issues that once demanded federal solutions, from national defense to civil rights, no longer top the national agenda. The next year could see a greater willingness to give states more power to experiment with problems such as welfare and education.
Along with Perot, the most striking symbol of the independence impulse may be retired Army Gen. Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With an approval rating of 58 percent in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, and a negative rating of 6 percent, he is easily the nation's most popular public figure, in part because he doesn't identify with either party and is avoiding any political activity until he completes his $6 million memoirs.
Without Powell's blessing, three draft Powell movements have sprung up, U.S. News has learned. Investment banker Charles Kelly, a former Eisenhower administration official, heads Citizens for Colin Powell. A friend and political confidant of Powell says, "Colin has not authorized anyone to raise money." But Kelly says the former general has not discouraged his effort, either. "There is a sense of disquiet, a sense that politicians have had their chance and it's time for someone to tell us to pull up our socks," says Kelly. "People want a real leader."
So far, Kelly's organization is a shell, but he says he has organizers in 30 states and plans to begin raising money in 1995. Another draft Powell leader, Burrell Haselrig of Largo, Md., claims to have recruits in 21 states.
Starting a Powell-for-president movement may prove easier than promoting bipartisanship in the next Congress. Hard-liners in both parties share the reaction of Democratic consultant Vic Kamber, a strong labor ally, who says bipartisanship "means sellout." From the right, Kristol warns Republicans that if they are "co-opted" into compromise with the Democrats they will lose their chance to provide a "coherent alternative to Clinton in '96."
Extremes. Both party caucuses will be more polarized, with retirement and defeat eliminating at least a dozen moderate Southern Democrats as well as two leading GOP centrists, Sens. Dave Durenberger of Minnesota and John Danforth of Missouri. The likely Republican leader in the House, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, is far more confrontational than the man he replaces, Robert Michel of Illinois, and aggressive young conservatives in the Senate are driving GOP leader Bob Dole into a more adversarial position. Dole is one of many party leaders with dreams of running for president in 1996, and a combination of clashing ambitions and political pressure could make life uncomfortable for GOP moderates who want to work with the enemy.
Moreover, each party defines compromise differently. Republicans use the model of 1981, when conservative Democrats helped pass the Reagan budget; Democrats point to 1991, when moderate Republicans backed civil-rights and clean-air measures.
Despite these obstacles, centrist senators from both parties are talking about creating a "bipartisan caucus" that would try to exert leverage on the legislative agenda. The idea was spawned last summer, when these senators made a vain attempt to craft a health care compromise. "We all found it to be a very positive experience," says Senator Lieberman, one of the participants.
Staff members from both parties have continued to meet since then and are well along in drafting a bipartisan approach to welfare reform, the top priority for many centrists. Al From, president of the Democratic Leadership Council, a moderate group once headed by Clinton, says welfare reform offers the president his best chance to recapture his image as a "new Democrat" who rejects big government solutions to social problems.
Among the other issues that might be ripe for compromise are health care and the budget. The White House already has indicated that instead of offering another large and indigestible health care plan, it will seek incremental reforms. And both parties support cuts in the capital gains tax and in income tax rates for middle class families. The problem is how to pay for them; reductions in huge entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are one possibility.
A first look at Washington's new weather map will come this week, when Pres
