President Bush’s compassionate conservatism-a GOP version of centrist Democratic Third Way politics that former President Clinton practiced for eight years-has given the new Oval Office occupant a political framework to reach across the aisle in promoting his agenda.
Indeed, the White House has been a regular meeting place for Dems since Jan. 20, as George W. lets rip a Texas-style charm offensive designed to forge coalitions in a Congress barely held by Republicans. The tack likely won’t work with liberal Democrats, and Bush knows it. Bush is really going after centrist and conservative Southern Democrats, known in the House as Blue Dogs.
But compassionate conservatism is a double-edged sword that could play out in ways not imagined by Bush, especially as the new administration pursues policies for a high-tech industry that’s become joined at the hip with the U.S. economy. All bets are off if the economy falls into a recession.
In no uncertain terms, there will be a fight for the heart and soul of Bush compassionate conservatism. It will pit high-tech against big-picture Bush political advisers. Clinton ran into this problem on several occasions, most notably when he sided with trial lawyers in opposing legislation to curb high-tech lawsuits.
Bush faces the same dilemma. The high-tech industry will want policies that may not fit nicely into compassionate conservatism. The president will want to accommodate telecom and Internet firms, but perhaps not at the risk of putting his credibility or re-election in jeopardy.
Wireless firms anxious to crack China’s potentially lucrative market of 1.3 billion people may find Team Bush less accommodating than the former administration on trade. While Republicans genetically tend to be free traders, the Bush administration early on signaled human rights won’t be swept under the rug in U.S.-Sino relations. Bush is expected to be more vigilant than Clinton in enforcing trade agreements. Lawmakers, staring at a $400 billion trade deficit, have told Bush nominees they will settle for nothing less.
Could a Bush hard line against China hurt wireless trade? Perhaps in the short-term.
What will compassionate conservatism have to say about hearing-impaired Americans who cannot use mobile phones; about the 108 million cellular subscribers who lack enhanced 911 service and emergency alert notification capability; and about brain-cancer victims who wonder why the U.S. government refuses to do more to study wireless health implications?
The wireless industry wants more spectrum for next-generation mobile phones with Internet, Bluetooth and multimedia features, but will the Bush administration be willing to reclaim frequencies from a Pentagon in need of high-tech resources for conventional and information warfare?
Will compassionate conservatism turn a blind eye to the kind of high-tech industry consolidation that diminishes competition and gives consumers fewer choices?
Reaganism with a social conscience comes with lots of baggage.
