NOT EVEN a war president and his fellow ideologues always get along. For example, House majority leader Dick Armey and President George W. Bush have their differences. Along with many conservatives, Armey doesn’t much like AmeriCorps, while Bush does. In fact, judging from the president’s State-of-the-Union pledge to expand AmeriCorps to several times its current size, Bush is hog-wild about the program. So it was on last Tuesday morning, at one of the majority leader’s weekly press briefings, that the subject came up.
Asked if Bush would have trouble getting his expansion plans passed, the majority leader stood firm: “As far as I can make it possible he will.” According to the Washington Times, Armey went even further, calling the very concept of AmeriCorps “obnoxious.” The Times account was notably droll, observing for instance that “Mr. Armey is retiring at the end of his term.” It also quoted Les Lenkowsky, who’s in charge of AmeriCorps, saying that Armey is “going to be looking for something to do next year, and if he’d like to become a member of AmeriCorps or–dare I say it–our Senior Corps program, we’d love to have him.”
Even before the story hit newsstands, however, Armey’s office wanted “to clarify our position.” They released a statement from the leader, saying: “During my press briefing, I was critical of President Clinton’s AmeriCorps.” Hmmm. Think about those last three words: “President Clinton’s AmeriCorps.” But here’s the thing. Yes, Clinton’s baby has been rightfully adopted by President Bush, but it’s still the same federal program–albeit one that’s growing up quick.
What did Armey say about Bush’s AmeriCorps? “President Bush has called for a whole new approach to volunteerism . . . and is committed to transforming this and other programs like it into initiatives that work.” Did Armey have second thoughts or was he ordered to shut up? More like the latter: As Lenkowsky told Bloomberg columnist Andrew Ferguson, the White House got in touch with the majority leader and “explained things.” But Armey’s about-face was so lightning quick that even the Times seemed to have missed it.
Two days later the paper ran an editorial called “Armey vs. the army of volunteers.” Of course, the editorialist might have been thinking of Clinton’s army of volunteers.
Nevertheless, judging from conservative reaction over the past week, it doesn’t take a Washington Times editorialist to oppose Bush’s plan. Both National Review’s Kate O’Beirne and Bloomberg’s Ferguson expressed reservations. Reviewing the liberal backwash that has sometimes flowed from AmeriCorps, O’Beirne called the program “a wasteful boondoggle.” Noting AmeriCorps’s sudden popularity in the GOP, Ferguson wrote: “If AmeriCorps can introduce Republicans to the intoxicating pleasures of governmental activism, then maybe it will indeed be Clinton’s most significant achievement.”
Apparently, President Bush will have to do some “explaining” to his fellow ideologues.
David Skinner is an assistant managing editor at The Weekly Standard.
