BILL CLINTON AND TRENT LOTT, the Senate majority leader, are the two most important politicians in Washington, and, from all evidence, they really like each other. They’ve talked about ten times since the election — about the balanced-budget amendment, Medicare, tax cuts, and education. Twice, the president has called Lott specifically about a controversial chemical-weapons treaty. He also phoned on December 26 while Lott was home in Pascagoula, Miss. , to talk about the budget and Newt Gingrich’s ethics woes and to wish him a merry Christmas. Two weeks later, Lott was paged by the White House as he sat in the office of Senate minority leader Tom Daschle; he returned to his own office for a friendly conversation with the president.
This is a far cry from Clinton’s testy relationship with Lott’s predecessor, Bob Dole. Indeed, Clinton and Lott may share the coziest relationship of any president and opposition leader since Dwight Eisenhower and Sam Rayburn. While their talks aren’t always substantative — “We’re not writing a budget over the phone,” says Lott — they are especially significant because the White House has problematic relations with House minority leader Richard Gephardt, a likely presidential opponent of Al Gore’s in 2000. Also, the nowdiminished Gingrich is a bitter Clinton foe.
The chemistry between Clinton and Lott may prove to be the basis for a center-right governing coalition that is likely to lead to an early budget agreement, some kind of tax cut, a crime bill, and perhaps some minor product- liability reform.
Dick Morris, the not-quite-disgraced consultant who has worked closely with both Clinton and Lott over the years, predicts a flurry of activity between his two former clients. The reason, Morris told me, is that they are both out to show that their respective parties can be trusted. Lott wants to prove that Republicans aren’t going to use Congress simply as a weapon with which to recapture the White House, and Clinton seeks to restore faith that a Democrat can be trusted to run the country. They have a real incentive to work together. Says Morris, “Their partisan interests will lead to bipartisanship.”
Though they’re ideologically and stylistically very different (Lott is a conservative who prizes order, Clinton is a chameleon who welcomes chaos), it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the president and the majority leader have hit it off. Mike McCurry, the president’s press secretary, explains that “the southernness of it all is very compelling. Lott knows the same kind of folks Clinton knows. . . . They’re both in the business of trying to help people on the back roads of the South.” But they are also career politicians (Lott was elected to the House in 1972) and share some painful family history, including alcoholism, divorce, and fathers killed in car accidents. “I feel very comfortable relating to [Lott] and I do like him, personally,” Clinton told the Wall Street Journal. Lott told me he has “very informal, even social” relations with the president: “We can talk honestly with each other.” But, he insists, that doesn’t mean he will melt when the president comes calling: “We come from the same neck of the woods. It’ll be harder for him to charm me.”
Further bolstering relations is the appointment of Erskine Bowles, an investment banker of moderate political temperament, to replace Leon Panetta as Clinton’s chief of staff. Lott clashed with Panetta, a left-liberal ex- congressman, and privately referred to him and other Clinton aides as ” Sandinistas.” Bowles is a different story. “I know we’re going to be able to work with Erskine Bowles,” Lott has said; “he’s a good choice.” After appearing together on the January 19 Meet the Press, Lott and Bowles remained in the studio for another thirty minutes, talking. And this Lott- related harmony isn’t limited to the White House, either: Daschle, too, has nice words for the majority leader, saying he and Lott “have a very good relationship” in which they talk daily and “I pop into his office or he pops into mine.”
So, the legislative machinery will run more smoothly in the next two years than it did in the pre-Lott era. When Dole left the Senate and Lott succeeded him, Congress was in gridlock. Democrats didn’t want to hand Dole any victories, Dole didn’t want to give Clinton anything to sign. Enter Lott. After being stymied in the opening weeks, he supervised the passage of much of the stalled legislation.
A test of Lott’s dealmaking talents during this Congress will be how he resolves the impasse over a treaty that would ban the use of chemical weapons. The Senate was supposed to vote on the treaty last September, but the administration asked for a delay because of strong conservative opposition. Clinton has now made the treaty’s ratification a top priority (it must be voted on by April 29 for the United States to participate in negotiations over its implementation). Lott’s public posture has been that he’s working with Clinton to iron out differences, but he warned at a January 28 press conference that if administration officials want cooperation on chemical weapons, they have “got to be a little bit more cooperative and forthcoming with us in other foreign policy, defense, and treaty-related issues than they have been.”
If Lott is going to work any of his legislative magic on the treaty, he will have to stir Jesse Helms, the obstinate chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Helms is adamantly opposed to letting the treaty onto the Senate floor for a vote. Lott won’t say whether he’s prepared to press Helms on the matter, but he has told administration officials that the treaty’s status is not up to him and that they had better deal with Helms. This stance encourages the treaty’s opponents, but they’re still uneasy about the new majority leader.
Indeed, Lott’s penchant for dealmaking has led to some distrust of him on the right, despite his reputation as a conservative ideologue. Lott himself did nothing to assuage the distrust when he told Meet the Press’s Tim Russert that “good government is good politics.” Conservative guru Paul Weyrich has known Lott for thirty years and is a fan, but he contends that the majority leader “is at times too willing to strike a deal when he doesn’t need to.” In his book, Morris writes of Lott’s frustration with House Republican freshmen during last winter’s budget showdown: “Their refusal to compromise seemed to Lott to be a repudiation of what congressional and presidential government was all about.”
While Lott’s flexibility might be expected to cause him some trouble in the new and far more conservative Senate, it probably won’t. Republicans of both houses now seem convinced they’re better off passing less-than-perfect bills than holding out for the ideal: “I’d rather have 80 percent of something than 100 percent of nothing,” Lott says. The bargaining will be made easier by Lott’s close relationship with Gingrich.
The seriousness with which the White House treats its relationship with Lott was underscored by its response to a minor tiff last week. Lott had raised a question about the nomination of Alexis Herman to be labor secretary, and in response, McCurry suggested that Lott had been irritated by Herman’s work encouraging black voter participation. This enraged Lott, which prompted the White House to go on red alert. An administration official rushed to soothe the majority leader. McCurry apologized to Lott’s top aide, Dave Hoppe, and told reporters that Lott had “good reason” to be angry. He also contacted Bowles to let him know McCarry was “in the Dutch oven” with Lott in case the president had to get involved. He didn’t. “I consider the matter closed, McCurry says.” If Clintonites are lucky, Lott does too.
Matthew Rees is a staff writer for THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
