First Strike Against the Democrats

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.