Hmm. Interesting question.
On the one hand, both seem to be coming in on relatively similar circumstances- having received less than 50% of the vote (and thus being castigated as “illegitimate” even before they begin), and each now heading up a government lead by their party after years of divided government. Both were somewhat moderate, but noted for their willingness to move away from standard party doctrine.
However, I think Bush will likely fare ‘better’ than Clinton for a number of reasons:
1.) Bush is ‘more illegitimate’ from the start. Clinton was kind of sidewhacked by the revulsion the right held for him; I doubt that anyone in the coming Bush administration has any illusions that the left isn’t harboring those same kinds of resentments. So Bush may be better able to prepare.
2.) When Clinton became President, Congress had a sizable Democratic majority, and thus was able to do damn-fool stuff and lose a few moderate votes without running too much of a risk of failure. Of course, said damn-fool stuff would later bite the Democrats in the ass in '94. Conversely, the Republicans have a slim majority, and damn-fool stuff may be attempted, but it’s much less likely to actually pass. Thus, the current Congress may act a great deal more moderate than the '93-'94 Congress did.
3.) Clinton came into office with no experience at the national level, and no close advisors with any real (recent) experience. As a result, it was a lot easier for him to squander his support and get carried away by the more liberal Congress. Conversely, Bush’s administration is likely to be very heavy with people who have a great deal of experience at the national level (not least of which, Dick Cheney, and W can always give a phone call to Daddy), so it’s more likely that Bush can avoid the inexperienced mistakes that Clinton made.
4.) Clinton didn’t have an example of how not to run your first few years of divided government. Bush does in Clinton.
5.) The Democrats who controlled Congress in '92 were largely unrepentant. They hadn’t lost the House since '54, and they hadn’t even lost seats in an election since '80. So there was a lot of belief in the Democratic leadership that they could do whatever the hell they wanted, and the public could go screw itself- they’d never lose Congress. Conversely, the Republican majority in Congress has at least some clue that they’ve been screwing up in the PR biz for the last six years, and they certainly know that their majority can easily be taken away.
Of course, there are plenty of things that could go wrong-
1.) Bush could actually turn out to be a conservative ideolouge. Given his father’s lack of strong philosophy, and given that Bush has been perfectly willing to swing farther left than any previous Republican President, I doubt Bush will suddenly try to force a complete and total right-wing agenda upon the nation; but I’m just making an educated guess. Bush could decide to swerve right and follow DeLay and Lott’s lead. Especially if headed by a “go for broke” attitude (“Hell, we won’t control Congress in '02, or the Presidency in '04- let’s omnibus everything right away and stuff it down the people’s throats while we still have any power; then, in '16, when people start trusting us again, we’ll try it again”).
2.) Bush hasn’t yet manifested the charm and charisma of Clinton. While Bush has proven to be a good politician (come on- he beat Gore in a race that six months ago everyone said Gore would win by ten to twenty points. While one can fault Gore for mistakes, one must give some credit to Bush for running a strong campaign), I don’t think he’ll have the ability to wiggle his way out of his predicaments the way Clinton did.
Still, I think the next four years will be denoted by moderation, with Bush trying to pull the Republican Congress to the left, and a generally mixed agenda gets put through (some really conservative stuff, but some really liberal stuff will likely also get through as sort of a quid pro quo. But generally, mixed stuff will get passed).
