TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/100791/1007103.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.6 KB | 117 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 26

THE POLITICAL INTEREST

First Strike Against the Democrats


By Michael Kramer


     By now the seduction is familiar. At about this time in
the electoral cycle the polls invariably describe an intriguing
dissonance: the President's popularity is high, but many of his
policies are deplored. As it was with Ronald Reagan, so it is
with George Bush.

    In perceiving daylight, the Democrats forget that in
politics the whole rarely equals the sum of the parts. The fact
that most people are mad about something most of the time does
not usually add up to a willingness for change, especially when
an incumbent President is seen to have secured the nation's
peace during his tenure.

    Things are especially weird this time around. In the
entire announced and prospective field, not a single Democratic
contender has more than a nodding acquaintance with foreign and
defense policy. While there is still time to appear credible on
these issues, most of those challenging Bush appear comfortable
with their collective weakness. None are as vocal about it as
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, who has come to play with his spikes
sharpened. But most candidates have bought the notion that the
threat of red ink outweighs the threat from Red Square and that
a strategy long on domestic prescriptions can turn the trick.
Only Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton demurs. "The American people
think the country is going in the wrong direction," he says,
"but they are not sure that the President can or should do
anything about it."

    Whether they cannot conjure an alternative course (or
perhaps because they simply disagree with Clinton), the
Democrats in Congress are preparing to aid their colleagues'
White House quest by adopting Mario Cuomo's advice: "Pass a lot
of bills that combine to form a Democratic domestic agenda and
dare the President to veto them." Thus, reasons Cuomo, the
Democrats can both engage Bush and set the terms of discourse.

    On the surface, Cuomo's thesis is unassailable, and two
likely Democratic initiatives -- health-care legislation and a
tax-rate cut for middle-class Americans -- will resonate among
voters. But like any other incumbent President, Bush has an
almost limitless ability to co-opt the agenda. The Democrats
have already been forced to respond to Bush's vision of
education reform, and his flip-flop on the issue of extending
unemployment benefits proves his political suppleness.

    Nothing better illustrates an incumbent's ability to
control the debate than Bush's new view of America's nuclear
defense posture. In last week's speech, Bush offered a vision
at once radical and prudent. No matter that the specifics have
been proposed for years; until now no one in a position to take
them up has done so. In the process, Bush is likely to trump
the opposition's most promising edge: its contention that the
world has changed so fundamentally that military expenditures
should be redirected to home-front priorities. In the short term
-- and perhaps for as long as a decade or more -- Bush's plan
might actually inflate defense spending. Nevertheless, as a
political matter, the prospect of moving toward a de-nuked world
is probably something most people would gladly pay for, and it
seems reasonable to assume that a peace dividend will eventually
be realized. In any event, none of those who would replace Bush
have the stature to credibly challenge the course he has set.

    Besides being a textbook case of political co-optation,
Bush's program highlights the importance of foreign affairs in
elections. In 1988 "about 22% of voters cited foreign and
defense policy as their primary concerns," says William Galston,
who served as Walter Mondale's issues director. "Almost 80% of
those people voted for Bush. It was they who provided Bush's
margin of victory, and more will probably vote those concerns
in '92 as Bush persuades them that the world is still an
unstable place."

    Galston and other prominent Democratic campaign
strategists like David Sawyer and John Rendon are apoplectic at
the sight of the current crop of candidates blithely walking
away from foreign policy and defense issues. "Idiocy, pure and
simple," says Sawyer. "There are certain tests a prospective
President must pass before he can seriously contest the
election. Foremost among these is the question of whether a
particular candidate is imaginable in the role of Commander in
Chief."

    To Galston, it is all obvious. "Over the past 60 years,"
he says, "every President has sent troops in harm's way. The
people know that a President's power to get people killed is
almost always his alone. Conversely, they know that no President
is singly responsible for anything that happens domestically --
good or bad. That's why foreign policy counts for so much." For
these consultants, the lesson is basic. "The key is not to
concede the territory," says Rendon. "Push all the buttons, make
lots and lots of speeches. Try your damnedest to articulate a
vision. You have to at least appear to be thinking deeply about
these matters."

    Representative Stephen Solarz, a New York Democrat, sums
it up nicely: "We are not likely to win the '92 election on
foreign policy, but we could very easily lose it on foreign
policy." So far, the Democrats seem intent on fulfilling
Solarz's prophecy. If they do lose the contest, they will not
only chalk up their sixth defeat out of seven; they will further
solidify their reputation as the party that never misses an
opportunity to miss an opportunity.