Traditionally the Christmas season lasts a little longer in Washington than in the rest of the nation. From the time the huge Christmas tree goes up across from the White House to the delivery of the annual State of the Union message in January, an aura of good feeling suffuses the nation's capital. This spirit was especially evident in the plea for "harmony and good will" which the President made in his address last week.

There are good reasons for the hopeful tone in which the request was delivered. For between the Administration and the new Democratic Congress lies a broad area of agreement. In two critical fields--foreign trade and foreign aid--the President stands to get a heavy measure of Democratic support. The Republican Congress which President Eisenhower carried into office in 1952 showed little appetite for either. Even the halfway "trade--not aid" policy stalled and was finally abandoned. With the new Democratic Congress, both trade and aid will get more serious consideration.

The prospects for harmony on many domestic issues seem equally good. Democratic House Leader McCormack went so far as to call some of the President's proposals "New Dealish." In all, it seems that the Democrats are determined not to be responsible for a "good-for-nothing, do-nothing" 84th Congress.

It is important, however, that the programs on which there is wide agreement be enacted as soon as possible. For as the year wears on, and election times comes closer, party lines are bound to harden. "Me Too" makes a poor election slogan, and the Democrats will have to start acting more like an opposition.

No one disputes that inter party harmony is a virtue, but like most virtues it has its limitations too. There are parts of the President's program--visible even behind the generalities of a State of the Union address--that should rightly draw Democratic criticism. Co-operation with the President does not mean that Congress must bargain away policies on which it has received a mandate, however slim.

In the field of social welfare, especially, the President's proposals seem far less than adequate. With fifteen million homes classified "substandard" in the 1950 census, the President has asked Congress for the authority to build only seventy thousand public housing units in the next two years. Since the 83rd Congress refused to grant even this pittance, there is a danger that the new Congress may accept the offer. The Democrats should not be content with doing better if it is less than good enough.

Similarly, natural resources and public works policies ought to be carefully scrutinized. The "partnership" philosophy in the development of hydro-electric power is certainly open to question, and some of the restrictions on private exploitation of public resources seem to be in great danger. At face value, the President's proposed $101 billion highway construction program seems commendable, but it is far less so if it results in curtailed federal aid for hospital and school construction. The nation already has an adequate highway net; but it does not have ample mental hospital facilities.

Compromise and cooperation are basic to democratic government, but honest disagreement is no less fundamental. In the coming two years, the Democratic Congress may often differ with the President, and this is as it should be. Big happy families do not need governments; democracies do.