THEY'RE ALREADY in New Hampshire, a pride of Republicans smelling victory in 1996, and getting ready for the first-in-the-nation primary one year from now. The first likely victim of the campaign season: What's up till now been remarkable party unity on Capitol Hill.
To be sure, the nine candidates who gathered at a Granite State GOP fund-raiser last weekend all put out bait any Republican voter would snatch up -- less government, fewer taxes, reduced regulation. Only on the divisive question of abortion did different candidates appeal to different constituencies inside the Republican Party. But, infact, these Republicans disagree on a broad spectrum of issues, from gun control to welfare reform to the role of the United States in the world. And those differences are going to cause no little bit of disruption as the Republican-controlled Congress goes about its legislative business.
At the halfway mark in the much-advertised 100 days, the first Republican House of Representatives in 40 years has much to brag about. Legislation has whizzed through that chamber at a frenzied and exhausting pace, as the Republicans rush through their Contract with America. Some of the measures have required compromise, some sections of some of them have been defeated but the Republicans are more than fulfilling their promise to bring their contract items up for a vote.
But what happens in the next 50 days and in the 300 or so after that before the New Hampshire primary? Then, as Republican interests diverge, things get a good bit tougher. The contract was devised as a campaign document by a minority party looking at public opinion survey data. And it's been a useful road map, giving a sense of direction to inexperienced legislators. But it's not a particularly helpful blueprint for governing. That's why Newt Gingrich announced recently that the "contract is not in stone." Splits in the party have already emerged and the issues of real concern to voters haven't yet been debated.
When those debates begin -- over health care and taxes and welfare and the legal liability of companies for their products, not to mention gun control and abortion -- the fissures dividing Republicans will be widened by candidates in Congress, and their allies, getting in position for 1996. Is it in Phil Gramm's interest, for example, to see Bob Dole get the credit for moving all of the legislation pouring in from the House moving easily through the Senate? House Republicans divided over a provision in the defense bill requiring congressional approval for the use of U.S. troops in peacekeeping operations; that's an area where Mr. Dole and Richard Lugar can be expected to fight it out. Arlen Specter wants to have the opportunity to prove that he and others in the party are for abortion rights; most of the other candidates are desperate to avoid that issue.
Then what of the Contract with America? Does it have so many cross-outs and footnotes so as to be unrecognizable? And even if the big procedural changes pass both Houses -- the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget and the line-item veto -- what will they mean for voters' daily lives? Republicans might be able to go home at the end of this Congress proudly proclaiming that they've divested the federal government of power, that they've told the states to solve society's problems. Will anyone care? Do people care about who has the power if they don't see improvements in their own communities?
That's a question that should be giving some comfort to Bill Clinton as he contemplates the year ahead.
Cokie Roberts is a commentator for ABC News. Steven V. Roberts is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report.