UH OH, HERE WE GO

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, recent survivor of a White House-led smear operation, brings us a piece on the beginnings of possible tension between the Bush administration and the far right (in this case, Trent Lott), which mistakenly thinks it received a large mandate to shove its agenda down our throats:

Days after winning unchallenged control of the government, the Bush White House and the incoming Republican congressional leadership have scaled back their ambitious tax cut proposals and dampened expectations for an overhaul of Social Security.

So what was Trent Lott vowing in Churchillian tones? Homeland security legislation? An economic stimulus package?

Well, Lott wants those, too, but his vow was to pass a ban on what opponents of the procedure call "partial-birth" abortions. In an interview with American Family Radio the morning after the GOP midterm election triumph, Lott told the Christian radio network: "We will move the partial-birth abortion bill through. The House did it this year. Once again, Tom Daschle would not call it up. I will."

Such public pronouncements on the Hill worry Bush aides. It's not because the president objects to the policy -- he had said he would sign a ban on the controversial procedure -- but because he does not wish to be seen as a captive of his party's ideologues, as President Bill Clinton did when he moved quickly on gay rights in the military. "I don't take cues from anybody," Bush said at last week's news conference.

On Thursday, the White House held a conference call with social conservatives and pleaded with them to be patient. "They're saying the president's priorities are already known, but let's be prudent and not just aggravate the Democrats by putting it in their face," said Deal Hudson, the editor of Crisis Magazine and an ally of the White House. "It may not be the first thing that this administration pushes because it's not this administration's style to get the controversial thing out there at the beginning."

This is a very, very sticky situation for the Chimp In Chief. He doesn't want to repeat the perceived mistakes that Clinton made in his first two years (when he had strong Democratic majorities in congress). He wants to get re-elected in 2004, and to do that he'll need the backing of the wingnut conservative base of his party, you know, the Bob Jones types. But if he promotes too much of their kooky agenda, he'll piss off not only the left but the center, and that will hurt both the congressional Republicans in 04, but his own re-election prospects.

If he doesn't support enough of the far right's agenda, the backlash could come from the right instead; after all, Bush couldn't have been elected at all without support from the solid conservative base of the GOP, so they feel he owes them, especially now that there are no direct obstacles to their agenda getting rubber-stamped. He's damned if he does, and he's damned if he doesn't.

I think that, all things being equal, Clinton going for broke with the left agenda in 93-94 made a lot more sense than Bush pushing the hardline conservative agenda now. Why? Because if Clinton's actions resulted in him losing congress in 94 (which he did), not only would he have two years afterward to gear up for re-election, but he would also remain as a political check against a new opposition congress, thereby decreasing the risk of supporting universal health-care and gay rights in the military. Clinton and the Democrats had less to lose at the time, compared to Bush now, with the presidential election less than two years away.

That being said, I don't think such reasoning will matter to Bush and his fellow conservatives, and they will plot the same course of action that Clinton did anyway. Conservatives are too arrogant and self-righteous to admit they're wrong, so despite whatever moderate posturing Bush is trying to put forth at this moment, he will give in to the Falwell/Bauer/Lott types. This will be one of the major political storylines of the next two years.

For additional reading, check out this Milbank piece from last thursday, including a revealing quote from conservative strategist (and Blinded by the Right bit player) Paul Weyrich:

"I think he should push his agenda as far as he can push it," said Paul Weyrich, an influential conservative activist. "I think he's going to be pushing a conservative agenda."

In particular, Weyrich said, Bush should take a no-compromise view on welfare policy and judicial choices. If Bush stiff-arms conservatives, he said, "There would be consequences to pay."

Let the games begin, indeed.

(P.S. By the way, what's going on with Dana Milbank lately? He's acting like a real journalist again! Perhaps the thrill of taking on the Bushies a few weeks ago has resurrected his proper journalistic instincts? Who knows)