Perng is a fourth-year political science student and executive
director of the Bruin Republicans.
By Simon Perng
“With the inauguration of President-elect George Walker
Bush, most Americans can now anticipate a new era of government,
rooted in civility, cooperation and bipartisanship.” As if
you haven’t heard this before. Right now, the era of
cooperation and bipartisanship that both Republicans and Democrats
promised appears to be disintegrating even more rapidly than usual,
ironically before our new president even takes office.
As I write this column, the usual publicity-craving cadre of
leftist demagogues are making a lot of sound, but raising little
fury against the incoming Bush administration. For example, last
Saturday, the Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus attempted
in vain to disrupt the electoral college proceedings that ratified
the election of Bush ““ they ultimately stormed out of the
chambers disappointed.
Given this progression of events, it appears that the liberals
in the Democratic Party appear ready to wage bitter holy war
against George W. Bush. So why do I say a lot of sound but little
fury? Simply put, the important Congressional Democrats appear less
and less inclined to vehemently oppose Bush’s presidency than
their constituencies would. From the aftermath of a bitter,
divisive election, Democrats now seek to recast themselves as
bipartisan, reasonable, open-minded politicians. They certainly do
not want to be perceived of holding a post-election vendetta
against their president that may ultimately backfire on them with a
voter backlash in 2002.
Furthermore, Democrats find it more productive to compromise and
get along with a president already known as “a uniter not a
divider” by his former Democratic colleagues in the Texas
state legislature. Even though Democrats may continue their
juggernaut media assault on Bush and the Republicans, in the end
they know that they cannot deny giving Bush a chance to govern this
nation.
 Illustration by JASON CHEN/Daily Bruin Senior Staff First
of all, both the Democrats and Republicans in Congress adhere to an
unwritten law: to allow most of the new president’s
appointments to the executive branch to be quickly ratified in the
Senate. Thus, both parties in Congress can at least appear to be
responsible, respectful stewards of the governing process by
allowing the new president to fully exercise his/her abilities.
The only obstacle to ratification of a president’s nominee
is what Stuart Rothenberg calls a “smoking gun,” which
may consist of “an ethics issue (on the part of the nominee),
not merely a question of policy.” So far, none of
Bush’s appointees have a smoking gun issue.
Even though Bush’s nominees lack any significant smoking
gun issues, Bush’s opponents remain nonetheless undeterred in
their efforts. The smear campaign of camera-huggers Jesse Jackson
and Al Sharpton labeling John Ashcroft a racist should be doomed to
fail. Jackson and Sharpton chose foolhardily to ignore
Ashcroft’s many qualifications for office, including his
dedicated public service from 1976-1984 as Missouri Attorney
General, 1984-1992 as Missouri Governor, and 1994-2000 as a U.S.
Senator. They label Ashcroft as a racist, yet ignore the fact that
as a U.S. Senator, Ashcroft voted for 90 percent of all black
judicial nominees and as governor named an African-American to the
state court of appeals, as well as to many other judicial
posts.
Jackson and Sharpton dubiously base Ashcroft’s racism on
the fact that as a senator, he voted against the confirmation of
Missouri Judge Ronnie White, an African American, to a federal
judgeship. But in fact Ashcroft merely voted against a judge that
was soft on crime. Ashcroft voted against White because White
overturned more death sentences than any other judge in Missouri
and overturned the death sentence of convicted cop-killer James
Johnson.
This flimsy rationale of Ashcroft’s racism that Jackson
and Sharpton allege adds up to much ado about ideology (whether we
want soft on crime judges or not), not a smoking gun that would bar
Ashcroft’s confirmation as attorney general. Even Democrats
in the Senate realize this. So far no Democrat in the Senate has
spoken out against Ashcroft’s nomination and in fact they
expect an easy confirmation for Ashcroft.
Likewise, if there seems to be any opposition to the
confirmations of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of
State and National Security Advisor, it probably would be on purely
ideological terms, for indeed both nominees possess outstanding
resumes. Everyone should remember Colin Powell as the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Bush Sr. and Clinton
presidencies. Nominee Rice served as a longtime Bush foreign
affairs advisor, and as a fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Liberals applaud Bush for appointing ethnically diverse members,
but criticize him for not appointing “members of significant
ideological diversity,” or, you guessed it, liberals! James
Morrow from the National Review says it best: “Apparently …
ethnic diversity means nothing if it doesn’t bring with it
liberal ideological lock-step .” Obviously, no one expects a
confirmation fight over Powell and Rice.
Second of all, Democrats find themselves more willing to give
into a new compromise-friendly Bush administration, given the now
changing political scene. Democrats simply need the room by a Bush
administration to compromise in order to adjust themselves to a
changing political reality. With the news of a slowing economy, a
bigger-than-projected federal surplus, Congressional Democrats find
themselves needing to turn a 180 on their previous opposition to
Bush’s tax cuts. Democrats may not be the certain avowed
advocates of tax cuts, but they certainly do not wish to be
perceived as the enemy of them when they seem popular.
House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt spokeswoman Laura Nichols
admitted that “there will be (a tax cut) “¦ it’s
just a question of size and who it goes to.” Also an
anonymous Democratic pollster even admits to certain Democratic
backtracking on the issue of tax cuts: “We got a bad rap on
taxes in the last election; the reality is that Democrats are for
tax cuts, but everyone who thought a tax cut was important voted
for Bush; people want to be careful we don’t get that rap
again.”
In this uncertain political reality, Democrats do not wish to
risk foregoing any options of potential Bush compromises that may
portray them as responsible public servants.
Finally, Democrats do not wish to completely preempt a Bush
presidency and risk their electoral chances in 2002. Democrats may
continue to raise the Bush legitimacy issue, but by doing so they
may risk appearing to be just as vindictive and meanspirited as the
Republicans in 1996 that allowed Clinton to shutdown the
government. The Bush legitimacy remains for now a losing issue,
since only about 40 percent of the people (in other words only
Democrats) believe Bush to be a usurper, according to a CBS News
poll.
If Democrats continue to press the issue of Bush’s
legitimacy, they may open a Pandora’s box. It may help
Democrats gain seats in Congress if voters become just as
vindictive, but it could also reinforce the image of a Democratic
Party out to get Bush and totally backfire. I suspect or at least
hope that the Democrats may cooperate with a Bush presidency to
diffuse the polarizing issue of Bush’s legitimacy.
As Democrat liberals make the sound, it seems for now that
Democrats in Congress stir up little fury. I now hope that the
Congressional Democrats continue to do so and cooperate with our
new president. If the Democrats share just enough commitment to
Bush’s prerogatives for education reform and tax reform, they
can demonstrate their appeal to the vast majority of Americans,
rather than continue to divide this nation and play to their
vindictive factions already in their own party.