Yes, Democratic insiders were all smoochy in the capital last week, eager to forget that at the same dinner parties six months ago they weren’t kissing the Clintons but kissing them off. George and Barbara Bush, displaying a gracious amnesia from the campaign, showed the world how a civilized transfer of power takes place. Even Bob Dole managed to say something nice for a change. But beneath the pleasantries–beyond the interlude of goodwill in the country at large–lies the grimmer task of taming the woolly mammoth that is Washington.
“The biggest problem is just inertia,” says one Clinton aide, rubbing up against reality. “Washington has atrophied in the last 12 years and doesn’t remember how to move. Every time you mention a proposal, they say it can’t get done–the lobbyists or the chairman or someone won’t let it. It’s as if members think they’d be doing their job wrong if they passed legislation.” While still hopeful about the jobs /health-care / national-service/ deficit-reduction agenda of his boss, he sighs: “The only thing that’s changed about Washington is the president.”
Even that is still eight weeks away. In the anxious interregnum before the Jan. 20 Inauguration, Permanent Washington bestirs itself, extending its hand and digging in its heels at the same time. All of the major late-century interests-the medical-industrial complex, the military-job-protection establishment, the corporate gimmes, the ossified liberal ostriches-pledge fealty to young Prince Willie, just as they would any new Democratic president. So does the Hill, not just the leadership, but such Democratic mules as Dan Rostenkowski, John Dingell, Robert Byrd, Lloyd Bentsen. Clinton will work these power centers as assiduously as any president could. Full Schmooze. New Best Friends. The question is whether the grinding gears of interest-group politics will chew up anyone who tries to get under the hood.
Let’s face it: no Democrat in a quarter century has managed to bend Washington to his will. The challenge confronting Clinton would leave the last one who did, Lyndon Johnson, scratching his big ears in confusion over where to find the system’s pressure points. Clinton may still believe in a “place called Hope,” but Washington believes more in a complacency called money and status. Why change when everyone in town is doing so well with the system the way it is? The lava of lawyer-lobbyists, who tell people at parties that they are in “government affairs,” has cooled and solidified into an entrenched white, upper-middle-class subculture, complete with its own cozy and rationalizing journalists.
Today’s power game is less corrupt but more complex than in the old days. The fat cigar-chomper stuffing cash into a congressman’s pocket has been replaced by a horn-rimmed preppy with a Ph.D. who makes perfectly legal campaign payoffs, spouts plausible-sounding statistics and gins up a million pieces of constituent mail on 48 hours’ notice. As Jeffrey H. Birnbaum explains in a forthcoming book, “The Lobbyists,” the latest rage in lobbying is for “black hat” corporations to associate themselves with “white hat” interests like universities and consumers. That way, the subculture coheres and its inhabitants convince themselves that they are doing the public’s business instead of raiding the Treasury.
More immediately, some K Street lobbying firms have become desperate to find out which Democrat is getting which executive-branch job so that they can go out and hire that person’s pals. In other words, if your friend gets a job with Clinton, you get put on retainer at $200 an hour to make sure that the two of you stay friends. At the higher levels, where the Ron Browns and Anne Wexlers dwell, the lobbyists are close friends and backers of the president-elect himself.
Attuned, as always, to the politics of the issue, Clinton is said to be pondering the message conveyed by 19 million Perot voters. No one expects his new ethics rules–or even campaign–finance reform–to transform Sodom into some New Jerusalem. But to accomplish anything, Clinton needs to chart a course through the sludge. Some suggestions from old hands, many of which the Clinton folks have already thought of:
Political campaigns are about message discipline and coalition-building. So are legislative campaigns. This is why Clinton is likely to combine his communications office with his congressional liaison office into a White House “war room” not unlike the one in the Little Rock campaign headquarters. He’ll go public (on TV, over the head of Congress) and private (cajoling, flattering, haggling) at once-a pincer effect. In place of capturing the election, the goal will be capturing Washington. Victory or defeat will be measured not at the polls (or in the polls) but by roll calls. Bus trips will be replaced by “omnibus” trips-huge legislative packages to be voted up or down at once.
They say running against the Washington establishment hurt Jimmy Carter. But every 20th-century Democratic president has tried to stigmatize Washington lobbyists. Woodrow Wilson literally chased them out of town; FDR called them “pests”; Harry Truman made a point of saying that he–not they–represented most Americans. The reason is obvious: identifying powerful enemies puts the president on the side of the people. Clinton shies away from confrontational rhetoric, but he’ll need to use some interest groups as foils or be swamped by the next Perotist wave. Will his “please gene” allow his “change gene” to do so?
Even Clinton’s own aides admit that he is not comfortable wielding the stick. To succeed, he’ll have to learn how. The only language most legislators understand is strength, not just political but personal. Clinton doesn’t like to embarrass individuals or interest groups publicly, but even that might be necessary to show that crossing him carries a price. Like the Sister Souljah gambit, a few early signs of toughness can go a long way.
The worst moment in the transition so far was when Clinton said that Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell convinced him that Congress “took a [staff] cut” already. Nothing of the kind has taken place. Perhaps Clinton knew that and was making a calculated concession to Mitchell by saying otherwise. If he didn’t–if he fell for Mitchell’s line–he’d better wise up or he’ll get steamrolled again.
Clinton is a dealmaker, and that often means settling for half a loaf. But his biggest coup–the selection of Al Gore–was based on rejecting old balanced-ticket thinking in favor of intensifying the message. Because Clinton’s success depends on fundamental instead of incremental change, he’ll either have to hold fast to almost all of what he wants-or start the process from a bolder base line than he prefers so that the eventual compromise still represents something real.
It’s easy to think that signing a bill in the Rose Garden and passing out the pens is the end of the story. For the K Street crowd, it’s just the beginning. That’s when they go to work grabbing control of regulations and enforcement. To prevent bills from being killed after they become law, Clinton will need to sprinkle loyalists throughout the government. Outnumbered on all sides by bureaucrats and lobbyists, they must learn to fight together–every day–or risk becoming exactly what they have come to town to change.
Do you approve of the way Bill Clinton is handling his presidential transition? 62% Approve 14% Disapprove Do you expect that at this time next year you will be financially 53% Better off 18% Worse off For this NEWSWEEK Poll, The Gallup Organization telephoned 764 adults Nov. 1920. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. “Don’t know” and some other responses not shown. The NEWSWEEK Poll copyright 1992 by NEWSWEEK, Inc. What is your opinion of Hillary Clinton? 57% Favorable 21% Unfavorable Do you think Hillary Clinton is playing too great a role in the transition process? 62% Not too great 25% Too great Should Clinton delay lifting military restrictions on gays if there are strong arguments that it will produce serious morale and readiness problems? 61% Should delay 28% Should not NEWSWEEK Poll, Nov. 19-20, 1992
PHOTOS (4): The Clintons got red-carpet treatment last week, at the White House and on the streets of the capital. But Permanent Washington will be much harder to satisfy than Tiara Dews’s request for Inauguration tickets (above). (JOHN FICARA– NEWSWEEK [2], JEFF MARKOWITZ–SYGMA [2])
