What are the prospects for policy advancement during the next two years? On the surface, the chances look slim. President Bush will be firmly and irrevocably a lame duck: two years and out. Every day after Jan. 20 next year will be one day less for the president and a day closer to the day his successor steps in. It will be increasingly hard for him to maintain everybody’s attention in the way he did for most of his first six years.

Resident Scholar Norman J. Ornstein

At best--and only five people in Washington, D.C., including Bush and Karl Rove, believe in this scenario--the president will have a Republican House with a majority of perhaps two or three, and a similarly small margin in the Senate.

Democrats, in this scenario, will be stunned and demoralized, but not so much that they will provide votes that help Republicans get what they want. And Republicans will be hard-pressed to find many key issues on which they can win without debate or amendment--something they had difficulty pulling off with the comparatively fat margin of 15.

In the Senate, 50, 51 or 52 seats will entitle the GOP, if that is the outcome, to act on the president’s judicial nominees, but it won’t make it any easier for the party to overcome filibusters on a wide range of issues or appointments.

In the worst case for Republicans, the president will face Democratic majorities in both chambers, possibly a robust one (20 to 25 seats) in the House and one or two seats in the Senate. And a third scenario, maybe the most likely, would have a Democratic House and a narrow Republican majority in the Senate.

Pick your poison. In any of the scenarios, Bush will have a set of tough choices about his approach to governing during his final two years. How important is a policy legacy to him? How much will he be willing to risk serious criticism and flak from a chunk of his own right-wing base by moving to the middle? How tough or flexible will he--and Vice President Cheney--be when serious oversight begins and subpoenas fly? How in-your-face will he be with nominations for courts of appeals and possibly the Supreme Court?

Of course, the president is not the only one who will have to make choices. Will a Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) if the Democrats take over be willing to risk serious criticism and flak from a chunk of her left-wing base if she works out a series of compromises with the lame-duck president? Will Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)--either as Majority Leader or Minority Leader--use filibuster threats, and the filibuster itself, to stymie action on nominations and legislation, or will he offer the president olive branches from time to time?

Still, the climate in Washington, and the opportunity for meaningful policy action, will be driven by the president. He can try to be a uniter rather than a divider, as he once promised--for instance, by offering a series of options that parallel the No Child Left Behind Act. With that education bill, he began the process by negotiating with both Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), and he could do the same with their equivalents on energy, health policy and immigration legislation.

Or the president can go back to proposing strongly conservative policies, promise to veto anything else--and follow through with actual vetoes--and seek out constitutional confrontation on every Congressional request for documents or witnesses, regardless of whether they are serious infringements on long-standing executive prerogatives.

Bush did in fact pursue a uniter-not-divider approach as governor of Texas. But in the five years since No Child Left Behind, we have not seen one other comparable example. Medicare prescription drug legislation began that way in the Senate, but it became a wholly partisan issue in the House and in the subsequent conference committee.

There are many issues that could advance with a conciliatory approach--indeed advance more than they would with an all-Republican governing team. We actually could move more toward budget balance and stability if Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) were to become willing partners. Tax reform could advance with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) filling the catalyst role occupied by former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) and former Democratic Reps. Richard Gephardt (Mo.) and Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.) when President Ronald Reagan was in office.

Immigration reform already has established a middle ground approach close to what the president has advocated, with substantial Democratic backing. There are many areas of health policy, from technology to the uninsured, that offer ample middle ground if anyone is willing to seek it; here, the president actually could find working relationships with people such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Energy conservation is yet another area, with Members such as Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). There are opportunities as well in pension reform, global warming and a dozen other areas where a fresh, “third way” approach could work.

Will there be a willingness to take up the gauntlet? The president, Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and White House political guru Rove need to think long and hard about how they will approach the homestretch in a very different political dynamic. How much will the president continue to be driven by his father’s failure to hold the GOP base, especially after the 1990 budget agreement (which, in retrospect, was a huge policy achievement)? That failure contributed mightily to the elder Bush’s defeat for a second term--but this president already won his second term, and the lesson ought to be a different one. If base politics continue to drive the White House and Congress, we’ll have a very long and difficult two years ahead.

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.