The Creative Stubbornness of Harry Reid

• Share

One by one, members of the U.S. senate, Republican and Democrat alike, took to the floor last Thursday demanding that the Federal Government spend more money. It was a stirring spectacle, but not for Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, chairman of the Budget Committee, who opposed each measure with the wry frustration of a man attempting to juggle Jell-O. Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, wanted to restore block grants for cities. "I could tell you story after story," he said about the glorious effects of federal dough. "If we start funding all the stories," Gregg responded, "we're going to run out of money." Ted Kennedy then rose, bristling with charts and graphs, to beg restoration of $5.4 billion for public education. "If money were the answer," Gregg sighed, "Washington, D.C., would have the best schools in the country," adding that the district spent more money per student than most states with worse results.

But Coleman eventually had his way, and so did Kennedy, and so did Gordon Smith of Oregon, who wanted $14 billion restored to Medicaid, and so did Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who—soaring into the wild blue yonder—wanted $64 billion more in tax cuts. And so, kerplop. The Bush budget sank of its own cynical inelegance. Which leaves us with a legislative mess, the same mess as last year's, when the House and Senate couldn't agree on a budget. Only it's worse this time, because if the two houses can't reconcile themselves, a host of beloved conservative bonbons that mustered the 51 votes necessary for the passage of budget provisions—tax cuts, for example, and drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—will have to be resubmitted, and will probably be defeated, under normal Senate rules, where 60 votes are required.

The Republican majority has now located the limits of the possible, and it has been guided to that ledge by the creative intransigence of Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, whose control over his donkeys has been as striking as G.O.P. Senate leader Bill Frist's failure to herd his elephants. Reid has been clever and very, very tough. His opening bid was opposition to President Bush's Social Security semiprivatization plan, which proved a congenial place for Democrats to congregate. Social Security reform now appears to be moribund. The Democrats hung together on the budget last week, luring moderate Republicans to their cause on Medicaid, education and grants for cities. And it appears likely that they will hang together on the next big crisis—the Republican attempt to stop Democratic filibusters against some of the President's more injudicious judicial appointments.

"We are going to protect the historic rights of the legislative minority," said Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who has frequently cosponsored legislation with Republicans and, as a matter of principle, almost always supports the President on his Cabinet appointments. Feingold offered last week the most responsible budget amendment imaginable: that Congress be required to pay, through taxes or cuts, for any new spending proposals. It failed, for lack of G.O.P. support. "The Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility," he told me, "but they are openly hostile to it if it stands in the way of tax cuts. They are totally intoxicated with power and out of control."

Feingold has a point. After 10 years in power, the Republicans have become as arrogant and, arguably, corrupt—yes, you, Congressman Tom DeLay—as the Democrats were when their 40 years of legislative control was mercifully halted in 1994. But there is a difference now.

In the old days, the Senate was dominated by leaders who were moderate dealmakers. "The leaders don't talk to each other anymore," said a prominent Republican. "They communicate on cable news. The system is completely dysfunctional."

That is not entirely true. Republican moderates showed their power in the Senate last week, and they did so by hammering out deals with Democrats. There also was cooperation on the recent bankruptcy and tort-reform bills. But Reid and Frist are not talking—at all—about the really divisive issues, especially the coming showdown over judicial appointments. Frist, who may run for President, wants to show conservatives that he can be a tough guy on an issue that is paramount to them. Reid is not about to abandon his successful stubbornness.

My guess is, Reid will win the judicial battle. He holds the ultimate nuclear weapon, the ability to bring the Senate to a halt using individual points of privilege. Frist will have to convince not only moderates but also a handful of Republican traditionalists that they should vote to overturn a Senate custom—the filibuster—that protected their rights in years past. There is danger to Reid's strategy, of course. The Democrats run the risk of seeming hopelessly recalcitrant, of using legislative gimmicks to achieve in Congress what they have resoundingly failed to accomplish at the ballot box.

Intransigence is a sad and ugly legacy, but at this point, Reid's Democrats will take what victories they can get.