TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/042291/0422100.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 8.8 KB | 183 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 28

Back to Reality


As Americans focus again on problems at home, Bush's approval
rating is falling. But that won't necessarily help Democrats.

By RICHARD LACAYO -- Reported by Laurence I. Barrett/Washington,
Marc Hequet/St. Paul and James Willwerth/Los Angeles


    No role was ever so becoming to George Bush as the one he
played during the war against Iraq: resolute and successful
Commander in Chief of America's armed forces. It was an
opportunity that came just in time. After a long honeymoon with
the American people, the President's baffling flip-flops on
taxes and a gathering recession caused his approval rating to
fall to a so-so 53% by last autumn. The buildup to war followed
by the breathtaking weeks of combat made Americans forget all
that. Soon after Kuwait was liberated in February, Bush's
popularity rocketed to an unprecedented 86%. Democrats could
only gape in awe at his upward trajectory.

    But now the euphoria is wearing thin. As the troops head
back to the U.S., misgivings about the nation and its future
have also come marching home. A TIME/CNN survey conducted last
week by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman indicates trends that are
not totally unexpected but are nonetheless significant: Bush's
popularity is eroding and the public is increasingly concerned
about the economy. Democrats may want to think twice before
conceding the 1992 election in advance.

    The TIME/CNN poll shows Bush still enjoying an
extraordinary approval rate of 76% -- even Ronald Reagan stood
at just 38% at a comparable point in his first term. But that
represents a 10-point drop from March 7, one week after American
and allied troops rolled into Kuwait City. White House officials
took the dip in stride, claiming that they never put too much
stock in the President's incredible postwar approval ratings and
had always expected them to settle down to more realistic
levels. "When he was at 70% it was great," said an official last
week. "But 90% was just plain silly."

    Even so, growing concerns about domestic problems were
starting to deflate Bush's gulf war bubble. Fears about the
economy in particular were appearing increasingly nettlesome for
the White House. Nearly half those questioned on March 7 said
they thought the economy was in "fairly good" shape. By last
week that number was down to 36%. At the same time, those who
thought it was in "poor" condition had risen from 38% to 46%.

    Though there are a few glimmers of hope for economic
recovery -- housing starts in February were up 16.4% over the
previous month -- the present pain is nearer at hand.
Unemployment went to 6.8% last month, up from 5.2% in June. All
around the country, cities and states are contemplating new
taxes and making painful cuts into budget funds for schools,
police and other government services. Every time a bank totters
or an S&L tumbles or an insurance company collapses into
bankruptcy, a shudder goes through the nation. The old concerns
about Bush's feckless approach to domestic issues are beginning
to reappear. "The serious problems haven't been addressed," says
Houston lawyer Patrick Dugan, a Bush supporter who usually votes
Republican. "The deficit, S&Ls, plummeting real estate. People
were scared during the war. All the Saddam rhetoric, they
focused on that. Now all of a sudden, the problems are back and
they're big, big, big."

    Still the picture is not entirely gloomy. The gulf war
offered evidence of skillful American leadership and successful
U.S. technology. To some, Bush's success in the gulf raised
confidence in his potential on the domestic front. "He seemed
like a different person during the war," says Watertown, Mass.,
elementary school principal John Degnan. "He took tough
positions and held to them." Concludes George Browning, an
accountant in the La Canada-Flintridge suburb of Los Angeles:
"He's no longer the wuss he once was. The war did close the
books on that."

    White House aides point out that even as Bush focused on
the gulf war, he did not neglect his domestic responsibilities.
Since January, they note, he has laid the groundwork for a new
banking plan, a new energy plan and a reduction in the number of
military bases around the country, and has begun a big push for
a free-trade zone for North America. This week he is scheduled
to unveil a much anticipated national education strategy. Even
before his popularity began to sag, Bush knew that he would have
to attempt at least some domestic leadership in order to keep
Democratic challengers at bay in 1992.

    In the international arena, however, Bush must be careful
not to squander the political capital gained in the gulf war.
Images of the President bonefishing in Florida while he
formulated his slow and equivocal reaction to Saddam Hussein's
crackdown on the Kurds have already raised some doubts. Bush
also declared that progress on the Arab-Israeli question would
be a priority immediately after the war ended. But during his
trip to the region last week, Secretary of State James Baker
made the kind of microscopic progress that is typical of
movement through that quagmire.

    "What's back in the picture is the wimp factor," observes
Robert Dallek, a professor of American political history at the
University of California, Los Angeles. "We had a hand in
creating these problems. Now President Bush is pulling back. It
raises questions once again in people's minds as to what kind
of strength he has as a leader." In part perhaps to thwart such
criticisms, Bush last week ordered the U.S. military to take
charge of relief efforts for Kurdish refugees in northern Iraq.

    Democrats were quick to make the most of the poll results.
"The public focus has changed from the situation in the gulf to
our challenges back home," declared Democratic national
chairman Ron Brown. "The 1992 presidential campaign will be
decided on kitchen-table issues because Americans are concerned
about their economic well-being." For weeks Tennessee Senator
Albert Gore, a likely Democratic contender, has been telling
anyone who would listen that Bush would turn out to be
vulnerable in '92. "The decline in the President's poll numbers
was inevitable," he says. "Real take-home pay after taxes is
lower today than it was in 1959, the year before John Kennedy
called for America to get moving again."

    Democrats, however, are poorly positioned to exploit the
tiny cracks in Bush's armor. To do that, the party needs
attention-getting spokesmen who can make a persuasive case
against the Administration. But no leading Democrat has yet
dared accept the challenge of running against Bush. The party
has fielded just two contenders, who so far seem weightless:
Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder and former Massachusetts
Senator Paul Tsongas. When asked about their attitudes toward
some Democratic candidates, 74% of those who took part in the
TIME/CNN poll said they did not know enough about Tsongas to
offer a judgment. For Wilder the number was only slightly
better, 69%.

    "The Democrats could drive these numbers more if they had
a few aggressive candidates, as they did in 1988, hammering us
on the economy," says Linda DiVall, a Republican pollster. "In
the absence of that, our side sets the agenda."

    The dearth of serious opposition, should it persist, could
be Bush's greatest asset as he seeks to win a second term. The
problem the Democrats face is neatly expressed by Barbara
Kantorowicz of Shoreview, Minn., a single mother who ended nine
years on welfare last year when she started work for a local
social-service organization, the Family Violence Network.
Meanwhile, her own day-to-day financial struggle goes on. "I'm
struggling just as much as when I was on welfare," she sighs.
Would she vote again for George Bush, as she did in 1988? Maybe.
"There's no better person in sight," she shrugs. "Democrat or
Republican." Now that Bush has begun to appear vulnerable,
perhaps one or two more formidable challengers will decide to
take him on.


________________________________________________________________
                                              March    April
    How well do you think things are
    going in the country these days?

          Very/fairly well                      74%      59%

    Do you approve of the way President
    Bush is handling his job as President?

          Approve                               86%      76%

    How would you describe economic
    conditions in the country today?

          Very good                              3%       3%
          Fairly good                           49%      36%
          Poor                                  38%      46%
          Very poor                              8%      13%