• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Political quake in US Senate

B. S. Raghavan

in the US

ON June 5, the 100-member US Senate is all set to witness a shift of political gears, the like of which it had not witnessed in the last 50 years. No doubt, Dr Marshall Wittmann of the Hudson Institute allowed himself to be carried away by irrational exu berance when he likened the ideological metamorphosis due to occur on that day in terms of the composition and complexion of the Senate Committees to ``the equivalent of the Bolsheviks taking over from the czar during the Russian Revolution'', but there is certainly no doubt that from that day on, the US President, Mr George W. Bush, and his Republican Party would have had to surrender their initiative to the Democrats.

Even the very thought of such a contingency did not figure in the wildest imagination, leave alone the calculations, of the most optimistic of the members of the Democratic Party in the four months since the assumption of the new Republican Administratio n. The Senate was split exactly 50-50 between the Democrats and Republicans, and with the tie-breaking casting vote securely in the hands of the Republican Vice-President, Mr Dick Cheney, the GOP (normally expanding to Grand Old Party, but caustically du bbed by a Democratic Senator as Gas, Oil, Petroleum party!), the Republicans were happily ruling the roost. They had the power to set the agenda and determine the choice and pace of legislation through their control of the Committees.

Dramatic stroke

The ``coup of one'', in the words of the Senate Majority Leader, Mr Trent Lott, who will be downgraded, come June 5, to the position of a Minority Leader, changed all that in a single dramatic stroke. Out of the blue, on May 24, Mr James M. Jeffords, a h itherto obscure three-term Republican Senator from Vermont, announced he was formally resigning from his party and would thenceforward serve and vote as an Independent.

Since the Rules of Business of the US Congress decree that the chairmanship of committees of the House as well as the rank of majority leader should instantly be handed to the party which is in a majority of even one, all the 15 Committees of the Senate where the Democrats number 50 as against 49 Republicans and one Independent will be chaired by Democrats, with the leadership of the majority party going to them as well. It must be remembered that the US Congress works, and exercises oversight functions , through its Committees whose Chairmen have vast powers over the fate of the legislative agenda of the President.

Senator Jeffords was known within party circles to be a moderate who has been feeling out of sync with the approach and rhetoric of right-wing conservatives. He has been siding with the Democrats on proposals coming before the Senate on a number of occas ions in the past. He was one of those who voted against Mr Clinton's impeachment and has been questioning the wisdom of tax cuts as passed recently by the US Congress. He is also opposed to the throwing open of wild life refuges and heritage areas to oil drilling and pipe laying, as recommended by the President's Task Force on Energy.

In the ordinary course of events, and to an ordinary citizen, his sudden declaration would have been utterly mystifying because it was not at all necessary for him to renounce his Republican membership, in order to pursue his own independent line in the House as he had in any case so long been doing. As a matter of fact and tradition, members of the US Congress have always enjoyed considerable latitude in appraising issues coming before both the Houses and taking their stand according to their own best lights. They were not bound, as elected members in a parliamentary democracy are, by party whips or platforms. Nor are those who vote according to their conscience penalised by their parties.

For instance, six Republicans voted against the resolution of their party to impeach the former president, Mr Bill Clinton, and in successfully piloting the legislation tax cuts, the Republican leadership in the Senate was able to count on the support of many from the Democratic Party.

So, the conclusion is inescapable that Mr Jeffords deliberately set about to teach a lesson to the stalwarts of the Republican party. The reasons are to be found in a number of developments that had riled and hurt him from the time the new dispensation t ook over. Because of his maverick record of not kowtowing to party bosses, he was passed over for an important Committee chairmanship, and was blackballed for meetings of senior Senators called by the President for consultations. The immature and brash n ew White House aides of the President are also reported to have adopted an overbearing attitude and humiliated him on a number of occasions.

Bumpy ride

Thanks to Senator Jeffords, Republican party chiefs have been jolted out of their smugness and complacency and forced into realising the vital importance of addressing the genuine concerns of their colleagues, instead of riding rough-shod over their susc eptibilities. As Ms Olympia J. Snowe, a moderate Republican Senator from Maine, pertinently pointed out in an interview, Mr Jeffords' defection ``should be a wake-up call for our party's leaders that the voices of moderate Republicans must be welcomed an d respected.'' Even staunchly conservative Republicans have now begun pleading for broadening the party's appeal without sacrificing its principles.

Mr Bush has already directed White House aides deputed for Congressional liaison not to step on the political corns of both Democrats and Republicans, but work towards inducing a sense of participation in whatever goals his Administration seeks to achiev e.

Alas, all this may now be too late. With the impending taking over of the Senate Committees by opinionated Democratic Senators with pronounced liberal views, the Bush Administration is in for a bumpy ride. There are some important Committees which are li kely to give Mr Bush no end of trouble. The first is the Appropriations Committee which controls the purse strings of which the Senator Robert C. Byrd of Virginia, will be the Chairman. Of him it has been well said that ``he never saw a piece of pork he did not like''! In short, he looks upon government as a source of largesse to keep supporters and opponents alike on their toes. With him at the helm, the Executive Branch may cease to have any effective say on the purpose, direction and quantum of alloc ations.

The second is the Judiciary Committee to be chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Mr Bush's plans to put conservatives and ``constructionists'' may well be stalled, if not torpedoed, by the Chairman who has often expressed his reservations about s cheming Republicans who lay the groundwork through the ``right'' type of judicial appointments for the kind of decisions that go down well with their philosophy of less government, less outgo on social safetynets, medicare and the like, freer hand for bu siness and free play for market forces.

Mr Bush's current passions of national missile defence (NMD) and energy are both likely to be stymied by the chairing of the Armed Services Committee by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, and of the Energy Committee of Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. M r Levin has frequently come down heavily on NMD, saying that he would force Mr Bush to rethink his approach. He has no doubt that the unilateral deployment of a missile defence in violation of an existing treaty would lead to ``a less secure world''. Mr Bingaman has already vowed to make global warming his first line of attack and to block any attempt by the Bush Administration to dilute safeguards against environmental degradation and reckless destruction of habitats and biodiversity.

Likewise, Mr Bush can only derive cold comfort, if he does not break into a cold sweat, from the taking over of the Committee on Health, Education, Labour and Pensions, pitching for a minimum wage and greater concessions for unions which have been strong supporters of the Democratic Party, by Mr Ted Kennedy, the Committee on Government Affairs by Mr Joseph Lieberman, Vice-Presidential candidate in the recent election, who has served notice that his Committee would not allow any relaxation of safety stan dards to placate business interests, and the Foreign Relations Committee by Mr Joseph R. Biden, with his support for the UN and its peace-keeping operations and his advocacy of greater engagement with North Korea, to mention just a few aspects flying in the face of Bush policies.

There are, however, two factors that can mitigate the severity of the scenario. One, the extent to which Mr Bush is able to bring both Democrats and Republicans together on a plank of bipartisanship to carry out a minimum essential agreed agenda. The bil ls on tax-cuts and educational reforms are good examples. The other, the ability of the new Chairmen of the Committees and the new Senate Majority Leader, Mr Tom Daschle, to refrain from flexing their muscles, remembering that in 2002, one-third of the S enate seats will be up for fresh election and any excessive zeal shown in the meantime may end in a disaster for Democrats. The eyes of the world will be on them to see how they measure up on both counts.