Advertisement

Bush has not changed Washington's tone

By KATHY A. GAMBRELL, White House reporter

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 (UPI) -- When President George W. Bush assumed office, he swept into the executive mansion vowing to "change the tone in Washington" with pledges of bipartisan cooperation with Congress that appear to have disintegrated particularly since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks after which unilateralism has become more routine for administration officials.

It appears the only tones changing in Washington are coming from Christmas carolers.

Advertisement

"As time fades, it seems that President Bush having lost the [U.S.]Senate in the spring [to Democrats] is confronted with a need to bargain, but is doing a lot of things unilaterally now without Congress. The phase we're in now is perhaps is one in which a lot of the executive behavior now is resting on unilateral executive decisions - the setting up of the military tribunal system to try terrorists who are going to be prosecuted by the very statute he sought from Congress," said Thomas Sargentich, a professor of law and co-director of the Law and Government program at American University's Washington College of Law.

Advertisement

Last week president Bush invoked executive privilege to avoid bowing to a congressional subpoena to turn over records related to a 30-year-old Boston mob case and the Clinton campaign finance probe. Anyone familiar with the wranglings between Congress and the executive branch knows that was a popular - and oft-criticized maneuver - of the previous Democratic administration.

What is somewhat different for Bush is that congressional lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle have been concerned about the administration giving a sole stamp of approval to for its efforts to establish military tribunals to try non-U.S. terror suspects; its refusal to release the names of 548 people being held by immigration authorities; for curtailing attorney-client privilege of detainees thought to have terrorist ties; and for planning to interview 5,000 men of middle eastern background, even though they have no connection with alleged terrorists.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said his U.S. Department of Justice was within "the realm of the Constitution because they're carefully crafted to respect the Constitution and rights." But lawmakers on Capitol Hill opened hearings led by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the actions of the Justice Department. Leahy said he was dismayed that Congress was not consulted about the changes to the anti-terrorism law and what lawmakers viewed as a power grab by the executive branch.

Advertisement

And it was also tough to find common ground on what Democrats saw as an need for additional anti-terrorism funding for New York City which was attached as an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill bringing a swift veto threat from Bush.

On domestic policy, Bush's penchant for acting without consulting Congress surfaced as he sought passage of his faith-based initiative, ordering the federal agencies to perform detailed reviews of their regulations to see how they could be altered to give churches and religious organizations access to federal dollars.

A month ago, he signed an executive order preventing the release of presidential papers seen by many academics and historians as important historical data for research and review of how administrations work. That act drew sharp criticism from congressional members who held hearings to examine the president's decision. The White House argued it acted to protect and provide "a safety valve" for issues with the documents that might damage national security.

Martin Anderson, a former advisor to Bush's presidential campaign said the president was not doing anything that had not been done in the past.

"It happened to [President Ronald] Reagan all the time. It happened to [President Bill] Clinton. They would want to get something done. The other party didn't want to get it done," Anderson said. "They would see if they had the political power to push it through, if not they'd go to the people. They still might loose, but that's what they would do."

Advertisement

Anderson called the current fight over the economic stimulus package stalled in Congress a classic example. Daschle and a cadre of Senate Democrats have held out for expanded unemployment and health insurance benefits for displaced workers. Anderson described Daschle as "an obstructionist" saying Bush, more than any other president has tried to work with Congress and bring them in on discussions about issues.

"In some cases it seems to work, but in other cases - and this is one right now . I think the Democrats have decided, in terms of the election that's coming up next year, that we're going to fight on certain things," said Anderson, one of the architects of Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut plan. "We cannot fight on national security and foreign policy, so they they're going to fight on domestic [policy]. And they're going to fight on nominations."

The White House has been furious that the Senate leadership has not scheduled votes on its many of its judicial nominees. The Democrat-controlled Senate has confirmed 32 of Bush's 64 nominees. Republicans have complained that Democrats should stop playing politics and accused them of not confirming judgeships for holding up confirmations on Eugene Scalia whose father is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Advertisement

Sargentich said presidents sometimes use executive orders or other legal or constitutional mechanisms to sidestep Congress when it is clear that they might get their agendas completed faster rather than bogged down in partisan debate or a slow legislative process.

"We saw this with the first President Bush, too. If you go back through the years, lots of presidents have relied on their executive order authority or independent regulatory authority to do things they couldn't get through Congress," Sargentich said.

That, Sargentich said, could present problems for Bush in the long-term, especially in 2004 when re-election becomes a priority.

"To the extent that the people really want a change in tone with less partisan bickering and carping it could well present a problem to the extent that president carrying through on the commitment to be more bipartisan. On the other hand, it is more or less confined to terrorism and war-related subjects, and if that war goes reasonably well it may be something the public would forget," Sargentich said.

A potentially powerful voice is emerging across the political spectrum saying the president needs to move with the elected leaders of Congress and not too far apart from them and in a way that undermines them by ignoring them. On the other hand, Sargentich said it is possible that some members of Congress are more focused on their own political survival and do not mind allowing the executive branch to push its agenda through using the tools at its disposal. The danger he said comes when unilateralism upsets the federal system based on the checks-and-balances system between the three branches of government.

Advertisement

"There is a sense in which it is a lot easier for the president to act unilaterally than to act with Congress. The question is whether there are incentives for the president to act this way," Sargentich said. "If you want to act quickly without having to negotiate unilateral behavior is clearly more advantageous at least in the short run. The question is how long can it continue and what are the costs?"

Latest Headlines