Rangel is that rare antique in politics: an unabashed Democratic liberal. His steadfastness isn’t surprising. Since 1970, he’s represented Harlem and Upper Manhattan, a district composed of African-Americans, Hispanics and the Ivy League intellectual enclave of Columbia University. But if the present trends in this election season hold, Rangel will be remarkable for another reason: he’ll become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee–and the most influential tax man in America.
As they channel-surf, voters are paying more attention to the presidency than to Congress. But the action on the White House Network looks boringly familiar: it’s still Bob Dole struggling for trac- tion against Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, the chances are growing that the Democrats could take back at least the House from the Republicans, who won it only two years ago in what was hailed as a ““revolution.’’ In the new NEWSWEEK Poll, Clinton leads by 16 points: 51 percent to 35 percent, with Ross Perot at 5 percent. Presidential races rarely have a dramatic effect on Congress. Indeed, wary voters may well want to keep power divided in Washington. But the gravitational pull of Clinton’s lead is having an impact. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 48 percent say they’ll support a Democrat for Congress, compared with 43 percent for the Republicans–a sharp reversal from only six weeks ago, when the GOP led this ““generic’’ vote 47-44.
Behind the war for Congress lies another: for the soul and direction of the Democratic Party. Party leaders earnestly promise to be ““moderate’’ if returned to power, but they would have to live with a host of their own liberal committee chairmen. In the old Democratic days, seniority favored Southern conservatives; now it favors urban liberals, including Rangel. In the Senate, a takeover is less likely but would produce a similar struggle.
Not that the presidential race is over. In an odd way, it still hasn’t quite begun. Dole operatives insist they made headway last week by aggressively attacking the president for his alleged laxity, personal and political, on illegal drugs. And indeed, the spring-loaded Clinton campaign was forced to fire back, with not one but two counterattack ads on the subject.
Dole could use some luck, but isn’t getting any. Making small talk in Los Angeles, he praised the ““Brooklyn Dodgers,’’ who had become the ““Los Angeles Dodgers’’ in 1958. Later that day, Dole tumbled headfirst over an unsecured railing into a crowd of photographers. The accident had nothing to do with age or agility. But the networks replayed the grim footage endlessly, and one photographer snapped pictures of Dole cringing on the ground before rising, unhurt, with a smile.
Ironically, neither Dole nor Clinton is eager to talk much about Congress. Few voters like the institution. Dole doesn’t want to campaign to save the Republican Congress; he’s busy enough trying to save himself. And even raising the subject would require the use of a four-letter word: ““Newt.’’ The president is willing to be seen on the same stage with Democratic congressional candidates, but hasn’t–and won’t–make capturing Congress his theme. That would remind voters of the ““old’’ Clinton, the one who was himself a ““liberal’’ when the Democrats were in power on Capitol Hill.
Both for their own reasons–and to help Clinton–Democratic leaders in Congress have tried to shed the ““liberal’’ tag. They spent months assembling a ““Families First’’ agenda for the election season. It contains modest proposals for health care, education credits and child care–as well as a pledge to balance the budget in seven years with only $54 billion in new taxes. ““We learned a lesson about trying to do too much at one time,’’ says Rep. Dick Gephardt, the House Democratic leader who’ll become speaker if his party can achieve a net gain of 20 seats. ““Incrementalism is the way to go,’’ says Sen. Jay Rockefeller, once a champion of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health-care plan.
Democrats are incrementalists now, but would they stay that way? Even if they win, says Gephardt, their margin will be so thin that Republican help will be essential. Presidential politics could help, too. Al Gore, running hard for 2000, is incrementalism personified. Though Gephardt has strong ties to Big Labor, he’s the chief engineer of the cautious Family First plan.
But there’s another side to the equation. While the president is spending primarily ““federal’’ money on his own race, the congressional Democrats’ chief backers are the AFL-CIO (which is spending $35 million), senior-citizens groups, teachers unions, trial lawyers and Hollywood. If parties are the sum of the money and the manpower that elect them, then ““incrementalism’’ will be in danger if that array of interests shows up in the halls of Congress next year.
Then there are the chairmen-in-waiting. They’re the most liberal lot in history, says congressional scholar Norman Ornstein. Gephardt says that ““merit,’’ not seniority, will be the main criterion in choosing chairmen. But he’d be unlikely to risk civil war by ignoring seniority. The reason is race. Rangel is one of four African-Americans who would assume major-committee chairmanships. That prospect is a big selling point in the black community, where there is little enthusiasm for Clinton. The Democratic pitch in these places is to undo GOP cuts and changes in Medicaid, job training, education and welfare.
The good news for Democrats is that they can daydream about a victory that seemed impossible only a few months ago. But they should watch what they wish for. ““We have to be careful,’’ says Al From, director of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. ““If we get the House back, and then just return to the old ways, we’ll squander a historic opportunity.’’ It would be up to Clinton, if he wins again, to once and for all set the course of his fractious party. ““Clinton’s the key,’’ says From. If so, the president’s hardest task may not be winning again, but dealing with the allegedly happy consequences.
