Democrats: Now the Morning After

"The election was only the beginning. If we don't perform, we'll be held accountable--and we should be."

-- Democratic National Committee Chairman Robert Strauss

Democrats could have danced all night, and some of them did, as the champagne corks popped and the band played on in hotels and headquarters across the nation on Nov. 5. But on the morning after their sweeping election victories, most Democrats recognized that they had received no mandate from the American electorate. Because of Watergate and the economy, voters either protested by staying home or indicated with their ballots that at this particular point in the life of the country, they surely loved Republicans the less but not necessarily Democrats the more.

Even if no one could be sure whether the people had spoken or merely cleared their throats, the expanded Democratic majorities in the House and Senate forced on the party the challenge --and the burden--of coming up with answers to inflation, recession and the nation's manifold other problems. Clearly, if Democrats fail to act decisively over the next two years, they could in turn become the victims of voter rebellion and dissatisfaction with the way they are being governed. Declared Minnesota Senator Walter F. Mondale, a possible candidate for President in 1976: "The heat's on us now."

Public Outrage. Thus for Democrats, last week's euphoria was short-lived, even though they had scored their greatest mid-term election triumph since 1958. In the House, they apparently increased their control by 43 seats, to a total of 291, or one more than the two-thirds required to override vetoes. In the Senate, they added three seats --and possibly four, depending on the outcome of the close race in North Dakota--to their existing majority of 58. Further, the Democrats wrested nine statehouses from Republicans, while giving up only four of their own, not including Alaska, where the race was still unresolved. That meant that Democrats will govern at least 36 states, including eight of the ten most populous. Democrats also gained control of eight additional state legislatures, upping their total to 36. No wonder that when one top adviser to President Gerald Ford was asked for his reaction to the election results, his response was to gulp down a bicarbonate of soda. Two other White House aides tried to come up with some heartening words for reporters, then glumly agreed on the obvious: "Just say that we took a beating."

The direct causes of that beating were easily stated, indeed inescapable: the public outrage over Watergate, Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, double-digit inflation and worsening unemployment. These overriding issues coalesced to shape a generally sour mood on the part of voters that contributed either to the defeat of Republican incumbents or to the narrowness of many of their victories, whatever the quantity of purely local concerns.

Nonetheless, there was disagreement over whether the outcome had any enduring significance. Many shared the view of Columbia University Political Scientist Hans Morgenthau that "it is the result of the policies pursued by the present Administration and the one that preceded it." On the other hand, Theodore H. White, author of The Making of the President series, argued: "The pattern of the '60s, which was interrupted by the Nixon White House, seems to have reasserted itself with vigor. The Democratic Party may have resumed its movement. It will take four or five years to see whether it's real or only apparent." It was evident, however, that the Democrats can keep up that momentum only if they make effective use in the next two years of their new strength in Congress and in state capitals. Accordingly, most Americans justly asked of the victorious Democrats: "What next?"

The widespread defeats of Republican conservatives will make the 94th Congress decidedly more liberal than its predecessor. In the Senate, Democratic Victors Wendell H. Ford of Kentucky, Gary W. Hart of Colorado and Richard Stone of Florida are all to the left of the men they will replace. More important, the moderately conservative House will now become almost as liberal as the Senate--on both sides of the aisle. Only one member of the Wednesday Group, an ad hoc organization of moderate and liberal House Republicans, was defeated. In contrast, 30 of the 70 members of the conservative House Republican Steering Committee lost.

Given the youthful, more activist nature of the new Congress, many Democrats believe that for the first time in decades, the Legislative Branch will try to take the initiative on the problems that face the U.S. Says Strauss: "I don't think that there has ever been a time when the members have been more sensitive to the fact that the people want some action." Last week House Speaker Carl Albert and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield promised to come up with their own programs on the economy if Ford does not move quickly to propose new legislation.

Many doubt that the Democratic leadership can deliver on those promises. The 93rd Congress also had a large Democratic majority, but it failed to grapple effectively with inflation and recession. Tax reform, health insurance, the trade bill and many other measures have yet to get out of committee. Moreover, Democratic leaders historically have found it difficult to control unduly large majorities in Congress.

Yet the odds seem to favor a more disciplined Democratic majority next year. For one thing, Ford and the Republicans will be quick to accuse Democrats of inaction, much as President Harry Truman campaigned in 1948 against the "do-nothing" Republican 80th Congress. For another, Democrats recognize the need to make a record that will increase their chances of winning the White House in 1976. The party's legislative program will be high on the agenda of the Democrats' miniconvention in Kansas City, Mo., next month.

In particular, Democratic leaders feel some pressure to come up with an alternative to Ford's economic proposals. That will be difficult, because the economic views of party members differ widely. Still, given October's 6% jobless rate and forecasts of up to 8% by next summer, the lame-duck session of Congress that begins next week should speedily approve a public service employment program and improved unemployment benefits. The Democratic versions of both will doubtless be more generous than Ford's proposals.

Contrary to the fears of many Republican businessmen and members of the Ford Administration, the 94th Congress seems unlikely to add to the inflationary pressures by increasing spending. Explains Representative Brock Adams, a liberal Democrat from Washington and member of the new House Budget Committee: "The American public wants that budget balanced whether they are liberal or conservative." But the balancing may be done differently from what Ford would prefer. The new Congress seems far more likely than its predecessor was to hold down or trim military budgets and foreign aid rather than cut spending on domestic social welfare programs. Further, despite organized labor's opposition, the Democrats also may enact stand-by authority for wage and price controls, thereby passing the buck to Ford, who opposes them.

Dead Surcharge. The President's proposed 5% tax surcharge on moderate and high incomes is dead, a victim of voter disapproval. Instead, Congress will possibly hand modest tax cuts to low-and middle-income people, balanced by the abolition of the oil depletion allowance, a trimming of real estate tax shelters and an increase in the minimum amount of income tax that wealthy people must pay.

Democrats will take action on a number of noneconomic matters as well. The Senate Rules Committee reopens its hearing Wednesday on Ford's nomination of Nelson Rockefeller as Vice President; the House Judiciary Committee will begin its hearing next week. The Senate may vote on the confirmation during the lame-duck session, but the House will probably postpone its vote until next year. If so, the new House will be less friendly to the nomination, though still likely, barring new injurious revelations, to vote for confirmation.

The new Democratic majority also may approve a host of bills that were tabled or stuck in committee this year. Among them: a national no-fault automobile insurance program, a national health insurance plan tied to Social Security, a consumer protection agency, tougher antitrust laws and further reforms of campaign financing.

To enact the Democratic programs, however, the party's congressional leaders will need Ford's help. Although they can muster the votes to pass their legislation, they will find it difficult to override his vetoes, particularly in the Senate, where the Democrats fell short of a two-thirds majority. In both houses of Congress, moreover, there is a residual core of Southern and conservative Senators who often vote with the Republicans. On the day after the election, Mansfield called on Ford and won his promise to go "more than halfway" in cooperating with the Legislative Branch. Thus, the intricate opportunity looms for both the Democrats and the President in 1976 to take credit or shift blame for whatever happens in the 94th Congress.

On Merits. From the Oval Office, Ford viewed the election as offering his presidency a fresh start. Believing the voters have now exorcised their wrath about Nixon's misdeeds and economic mismanagement, one confidant explained: "From now on, it's the Ford Administration, and the President knows that it will be judged on its merits." Ford met at length last week with several advisers to establish a plan for action between now and the end of January. According to Press Secretary Ron Nessen, the President intends to ask the lame-duck Congress to act promptly on some 40 matters, among them his economic and energy proposals, the trade bill and Rockefeller's confirmation.

There is, however, a disquieting sense among some people in Washington that after three months in office, Ford is still groping for guidance on how to be President. According to Nessen, Budget Director Roy Ash has urged Ford to "steep yourself in the broad philosophical questions involved in preparing the 1976 budget. Partly as a result of that suggestion, Ford intends to commit 1 1/2 hours each day to pondering the major themes of the State of the Union address, which he will deliver in January. After he returns from his trip to the Far East and the Soviet Union on Nov. 24, he plans to spend a similar amount of time each day formulating specific proposals for his 1976 budget.

It all sounded like a remedial course on the presidency and left the unsettling impression that Ford has not yet fully assimilated the problems that face the U.S. or sufficiently disciplined himself to handle them. Such suspicions were heightened by the time Ford took from his duties in the Oval Office to campaign in 20 states for Republican candidates.

One presidential adviser insisted: "We would have batted zero if the President hadn't done something." Even so, Ford's prodigious efforts seem to have done next to nothing to help Republican candidates. The Nixon pardon, which ended what the Washington Post called the euphoric, "English Muffin" phase of Ford's presidency, cut off any coattails that his accession might have offered to beleaguered Republicans. In California, for example, Republican Houston Flournoy somewhat bitterly blamed the pardon for his surprisingly narrow loss of the Governor's race to Democrat Edmund G. ("Jerry") Brown Jr. Ford's campaigning did not keep Democrat Milton Shapp from being re-elected Governor of Pennsylvania or prevent Republican James M. Inhofe from being swamped in Oklahoma by Democrat David L. Boren. But there were at least two Republican winners who credited Ford with helping them to squeeze out close victories: Incumbent Senators Henry Bellmon of Oklahoma and Robert Dole of Kansas.

In retrospect, political analysts found it hard to imagine what Ford or any other Republican could have done to stem the Democratic tide. Said Pollster Daniel Yankelovich: "If the issue had been just the economy or just Watergate, there would not have been the same outcome. But at some level of consciousness, the people put the two together. The result was clear-cut anger and blame. They zeroed in on the Nixon-related Republicans, not conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans." In large measure, the reaction sprang from the electorate's strong trend toward populism and moral indignation, as limned in TIME Soundings, the quarterly survey conducted by Yankelovich's firm (TIME, Nov. 11).

Bright Spots. For the most part, Republican bright spots were confined to wins by moderates and liberals who had not been identified with Nixon. Among the notable survivors: Governors William G. Milliken of Michigan and Robert D. Ray of Iowa; Senators Jacob K. Javits of New York, Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania and Charles Mathias Jr. of Maryland. The conservative Republican contingent in the House was devastated. Of the 162 members who ran, 36 lost; voters returned all but four of the 219 Democrats in the House who sought reelection.

It was a campaign without well-defined national issues. The social questions that dominated the past two elections--law-and-order, welfare, and busing to integrate schools--were absent for the most part. Instead, inflation and the recession withered voters' attitudes toward Republican incumbents. Explains Emil Gutoski, a Republican precinct captain in Cicero, Ill., a blue-collar suburb of Chicago: "When people are hurting, they vote the opposition." Adds Political Demographer Ben Wattenberg: "In tunes of economic trouble, this country still regards the Democratic Party as the one that's more for the little guys."

Because of Watergate, the integrity of the candidates was another issue, often reflected in campaign styles. Many candidates made a point of disclosing their campaign finances, supporting campaign reform and opposing special interests. But Watergate had taken its toll long before the election, discouraging many top Republicans from challenging incumbent Democrats and drying up sources of G.O.P. funds.

Within the larger framework of Watergate and the economy, specific elections, as always, came down to a contest of personalities. This explains in part why an increasingly conservative voting public--as uncovered by TIME Soundings and other surveys--chose a more liberal Congress. With only rare exceptions, voters ignored traditional party or ideological categories. In Vermont, says former Governor Philip H. Hoff, "the ticket-splitting was just staggering." It helped elect Democrat Patrick J. Leahy to the Senate from traditionally Republican Vermont.

Turnouts were generally low--an estimated national average of 38%, the lowest since 1946--but voters were not necessarily apathetic about the issues. Explains Yankelovich: "No choices of action on the issues were offered them, so many said: Why bother? What difference does it make?" But even though about three-fifths of the registered voters stayed home, there were some noteworthy trends. In the Northeast, the old Democratic coalition of blue-collar ethnics, white-collar liberals and minorities helped elect three Governors: Hugh Carey in New York, Ella Grasso in Connecticut and Michael S. Dukakis in Massachusetts. In the South, a new breed of moderate Democrats ended a decade of growth by Republicans. In the Midwest, big Democratic victories for state offices made it definite that formerly overwhelmingly Republican bastions like Iowa are now two-party states and states like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois are becoming Democratic strongholds.

Some Republicans feared that the defeat portended the eventual end of their party. They noted that only 23% of U.S. adults classify themselves as Republican, down five points since 1972. A decade ago, the party bounced back from the Goldwater debacle and was victorious in the mid-term elections of 1966. But G.O.P. Leader Rita E. Hauser of New York City fears that Republicans may not be able to do so now. She explains: "Six years of Nixon-Agnew-Ford have pushed the party too far to the right. The party has become too narrowly based."

Still, many state-level Republicans shook off the dust of defeat and began trying to rebuild. In Illinois, for example, the party in recent years had fallen under the control of conservatives, who alienated moderates. "We'd better get the message," declared Senator Charles Percy, as he called for a strategy meeting next week of the Illinois party's county chairmen and other officials.

Looking ahead to 1976, some public opinion analysts believe that the Republican defeat did not damage Ford's standing with the American public. Says Pollster William R. Hamilton, whose Washington, D.C.-based firm works almost exclusively for Democrats: "Our studies show that he is still a moderately popular President. What matters for Ford is how he handles the presidency in the next two years."

The election results vastly unproved the Democrats' position in the race for the White House in 1976. In particular, the victories enhanced the potential presidential candidacies of three Senators who campaigned widely for the party: Mondale, Lloyd M. Bentsen of Texas and Henry M. Jackson of Washington. Others from Congress who will be looked on as possibilities include Representative Morris K. Udall of Arizona, Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana and Senators-elect John Glenn of Ohio and Dale Bumpers of Arkansas. Several present and newly elected Governors will also be talked about as potential candidates, among them Brown, Carey, Daniel Walker of Illinois and George Wallace of Alabama.

But whether the Democratic nomination will lead to the White House depends largely on what the Democrats do next. Explains Minnesota Senator Hubert H. Humphrey: "The public is just giving us one more chance." Only if the Democrats assume greater responsibility for straightening out the economy and for restoring confidence in Government will they be in a position to turn the 1974 election into a base for an even more important victory in 1976.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.