Bush, Gore would deal with Congress differently

Gary J. Miller, Ph.D. Professor of political science Arts & Sciences (314) 935-5874 gjmiller@artsci.wustl.edu http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~gjmiller

If elected president, Gore the activist and Bush the triangulator would have much different ways of relating to Congress, according to Gary Miller, Ph.D., professor of political science in Arts & Sciences at Washington University.

"In light of Gore's recent rhetoric, in particular his convention speech, it appears that a President Gore would be quite the activist," Miller said, "but he would need a Democratic Congress to pass all of those programs he's advocating. If he wants to fulfill these promises he's made on Medicare, education, and the environment, he'll likely need Democratic majorities in both houses."

If it's President George W. Bush, however, Miller predicts a more bipartisan effort toward more moderate goals.

"Unlike Gore, Bush has shown an aptitude for Clinton-style 'triangulation.' That is, he's consistently tried to distance himself from the more unpopular aspects of the Republican Congress and position himself as a moderate," Miller said.

"Moreover, he's stressed his ability to work in a bipartisan manner as governor of Texas, where the state legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic -- and frankly, with the endorsement of dozens of Texas Democrats, he has a decent case to make. So I don't think Bush is exactly dying to see a Republican sweep."

Recently, Miller has been applying a complex game theory to the dynamics of American party realignment. According to the model, which is based on a concept called "majority-rule instability," the minority party at the national level will continually forage for issues that can become salient enough to split the majority party coalition and thus catalyze a partisan realignment. Miller depicts these realignments as gradual shifts in the ideological "space" occupied by each party; he now proposes that we could be in another realignment.

In the coming era, suggests Miller, social issues such as gun control, abortion, gay rights, and school prayer will compose the primary cleavage between the parties. The Democratic Party will become the party of social liberalism and will tend toward laissez-faire economics, while the Republican Party focuses on social conservatism and leans toward increased government intervention in the economy.

How does Miller see this election in light of his prediction? Well, like any good prognosticator, Miller hedges a bit.

"The selection of Joe Lieberman, in some ways, works against the prevailing political winds that seem to signal a realignment," Miller said. "In the wake of the Clinton scandals, the Democrats are trying to neutralize the values' issue and Lieberman is the best guy for the job. His religiosity tends to bring the Democrats back -- temporarily, I believe -- to the middle on social issues. However, the long-term trend is for the Democrats to be increasingly liberal on cultural issues but increasingly pro-business on economics. Only on the latter does Lieberman comport with the trend."

Another less visible factor, Miller suggests, that is affecting party ideology and contributing to the Democrats' increasing pro-business tilt is money -- campaign money. In order to regain control of Congress, he explains, the Democrats need massive amounts of money to throw at close races, and the best source of money, especially after eight years of uninterrupted prosperity, is the corporate sector.

Miller has authored or co-authored books, essays, and journal articles on public administration, theories of bargaining and negotiation, and the U.S. Congress. Among his wide-ranging intellectual interests is a keen interest in American political history. His longtime study of Congress, along with his expertise in bargaining and negotiation, leaves him highly qualified to comment on the potential relations between a President Bush or President Gore and the Congress.