Calm Amidst A Storm

TWO hundred years after the advent of the French Revolution and the signing of the U.S. Constitution, a million Chinese marched in the streets of Beijing, demanding democracy and constructing their own Statue of Liberty. Despite the government's wanton massacre in the main roads surrounding Tiananman Square of 200,000 protesters on Saturday, and the threat of further crackdowns, hundreds of thousands returned to the streets this week in one of the most courageous defiances of government authority the world has seen in recent years, proving that, ultimately, force can not destroy a people's deep yearning to be free.

The dramatic events in China are indicative of many international developments during the past year. In Latin America, the Eastern Bloc and much of Southeast Asia, people sought changes of the old order and freedom from government repression. Brutal dictatorships were defeated in popular elections during the last year in Chile, Pakistan and, for all intents and purposes, Panama, while Poles this week voted in the first openly contested elections in the Soviet bloc. And, lest we forget, democratic openings in the Soviet Union continue to unfold at an amazing pace, astounding even the most cynical of observers, and culminating, so far, in a genuine choice for Soviet voters in the elections to the new Congress of People's Deputies two months ago.

Many parts of the world are currently experiencing heady, heartening times. As commentator Charles Krauthammer has written, we are currently experiencing "the greatest global democratic awakening in history." Of course, it would be naive and even callous to proclaim that democracy, freedom, and peace are on the march everywhere. Just ask Blacks in South Africa, the editors of La Prensa in Nicaragua, British author Salman Rushdie, forced into hiding by Iranian fundamentalists, Palestinians fighting for independence, or the many other peoples who remain oppressed by their governments or still seek independence from neo-colonial rule. And the price of rebelling against authoritarian regimes, as seen in streets of Beijing and in Panama City following Gen. Manuel Noriega's reassertion of control, is high and often bloody. Nevertheless, the highly encouraging though tenuous developments taking place in countries accustomed to repression should bring hope to men and women everywhere.

GIVEN an international situation in a remarkable state of flux, it is particularly disturbing to think of the immobility and ineffectiveness of our government in addressing its own problems. It is perhaps not surprising that President Bush began his term on a cautious, vigilant note. However, even though Bush did offer a desperately needed plan to relieve the debt burdens on Latin American governments, his first four months seemed, on the whole, to be lacking an agenda, reactive rather than active, characterized by weakness and vacillation.

Only last week, when--in an effort to counter the slew of peace initiatives proposed by Soviet President Michail Gorbachev--Bush unveiled a well-received plan at the NATO summit designed to achieve substantial cuts in conventional arms and troop levels, did the president provide us with a clear glimpse of his view of the future of superpower relations.

HOWEVER, even though we are optimistic about the international scene and view Bush's recent arms proposals in a favorable light, we remain dismayed at the new president's inertia on the domestic front. For while taking an initial cautious approach may be prudent in matters of foreign policy, it seems ill-advised in matters of domestic policy that desperately need to be addressed. Granted, curtailing the drug epidemic in our cities or reducing the nation's budget deficit may not be exciting or dramatic, but they are as vital to America's future as any conventional arms agreements in Europe.

A major campaign issue, the drug problem embodies many of the major social problems facing America--from poverty and crime in the cities to paltry health care to low education standards. Five months into his presidency, Bush has done virtually nothing substantial to attack the drug crisis. Although he spoke consistently throughout the fall campaign about waging a "war on drugs," his leadership in this respect has been inconsistent and incomprehensible.

Bush appointed former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett "drug czar" and accorded this post Cabinet status, but doesn't even allow Bennett to attend Cabinet meetings. He banned the import of semiautomatic assault weapons, the firearms of choice of drug lords, only to subsequently refuse to ban domestic manufacturing of such weapons. Of course, Bush's membership in the NRA, which somehow seemed less disconcerting to the electorate than Dukakis being a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU, may have a lot to do with these incongruous and contradictory policies.

Meanwhile, the daily death toll from drug-related violence in the nation's major cities is reaching numbing proportions. The number of drug-related murders in the nation's capital has averaged well over one a day so far this year. The figures in New York City, Los Angeles and Detroit reveal that these cities are not far behind. Thousands of babies are now being born with severe brain damage because their mothers are addicted to crack.

Wrapped up in the furor surrounding the nomination of former Texas Senator John Tower as Secretary of Defense and the recent allegations of ethics violations involving House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tx.) and Majority Whip Tony Coelho (D-Ca.), Congress itself is only now beginning to address the drug crisis.

BUSH'S inability or unwillingness to translate promising rhetoric into tangible policy can be seen on other domestic fronts as well. Relying on some vague "thousands points of light", Bush has also done virtually nothing of consequence to help the homeless and the "underclass" in America's major urban areas.

Throughout the fall campaign, Bush swore that he would be the "education President," yet his current budget, in fact, calls for a reduction in education spending. In a similar vein, Bush has repeatedly proclaimed a greater sensitivity to the needs of our environment than his predecessor held, but still showed remarkable passivity in the face of the Alaskan oil spill, seeming reluctant to confront one of the nation's major oil companies.

Stubbornly adhering to his "read my lips" campaign pledge that there will be "no new taxes," Bush offered a budget proposal that promised to reduce the current $160 billion deficit by over $70 billion during the next year, with mirrors.

Unwilling to offend large, politically powerful constituencies, Bush refused to tax costly, non means-based entitlement programs like Social Security or Medicare for the wealthy or to put a lid on popular tax breaks for the middle class, such as mortgage interest deductions, and instead urged a dramatic cut in the tax rate on capital gains.

As Senate Budget Committee Chair James Sasser (D-Tn.) said, the Bush budget proposal "does not meet the rigorous economic demands of this moment in history." And although an agreement with Congress has since been reached on the budget, it is still extremely vague and based on absurdly optimistic projections.

GIVEN the remarkable sacrifices and efforts that people around the world are making for ideals which we all too often take for granted, it would be a particular shame if, at this moment in history, America were to remain mired in a Reagan-like state of complacency and continued to ignore or sidestep many of its own social and economic ills. The United States is viewed as a symbol of democracy by struggling peoples around the world, yet it seems unable to provide the promise of freedom of opportunity to many of its own citizens.

As a nation, we cannot continue to postpone the tough choices needed to reduce our budget deficit. At the same time, we must be willing to make the investments needed to improve our public education system, clean up our environment, rebuild our cities and fight an effective war on drugs and on drug-related violence. So far, President Bush has revealed a disturbing lack of leadership and political courage in responding to the demands facing America in an ever-changing world.