It Ain't Over Yet

WITH MORE THAN A YEAR remaining until the 1992 Presidential election, America has prematurely and foolishly proclaimed the Democratic Party DOA.

Time, Newsweek and The New Republic insist on speaking of the election as if it were already over. David Letterman, Jay Leno and Johnny Carson resort to Democratic futility jokes whenever they hit a lull. In The Crimson, ("George Bush and the Seven Dwarves," Sept. 18), Michael R. Grunwald wrote: "Beat Bush/Quayle? The Dems couldn't beat Bush/Hitler."

The combined effect of these jokes and editorials is self-perpetuating: they make people believe that George Bush is unbeatable.

But George Bush is not unbeatable. If he seems so, it's only because everyone believes that everyone else believes that be's unbeatable.

Let's stop already. In reality, the Bush administration has been a near-total failure on the domestic front. And Bush's objectives for his second term diverge completely from what the United States wants or needs right now. A Democratic candidate that can bring home these facts will do far better in '92 than most people realize is possible.

A DEMOCRAT--at least one whose opposition to the Persian Gulf war is not on record--can probably put a few dents into Bush's foreign policy armor.

Saddam Hussein, of course, is still in power. The average American is probably pretty confused by Bush's failure to eliminate the dictator of Iraq, the guy whose picture graces their Desert Storm trading cards. Bush whipped up support for the war with crude jingoism--now, those same jingoists are going to be disappointed by the mere liberation of Kuwait.

That brings up another point--just how liberated" is Kuwait? They still have their Emir. Elections look as far away as ever. And there's always the Kurds...if the Democrats get really desperate for cheap shots at the President.

The whole point is that Bush's greatest foreign policy achievement is not so great. It's still a huge plus for him, but it doesn't make him invincible.

STILL, Bush's opponent would probably be wise to avoid extended discussions of foreign policy. Poppy's real weakness is the other half of politics--the half that affects Americans' lives on a daily basis.

You know, the "domestic thing."

What? You've forgotten about our own nation in the midst of all this exciting foreign entertainment in Europe and the Middle East? Don't feel bad. Everyone else did, too. And this is where any potential Democratic candidate has available to him a tremendous political resource.

Everything looks bad at home. Everything. Bush devotes so much time to foreign policy because he wants to shift American attention away from debt and decline to issues that make voters feel good about the world and their President. The sad thing is that the Democrats have let him get away with this. The key for Bush in '92 is for him to be able to impose his priorities on the American public--that is, to make people think important what he thinks important (the Gulf War, the fall of Communism, now nuclear disarmament)--because by any other set of priorities he cannot possibly win.

Here's an agenda for a Democratic candidate willing to take a few stands:

Crime. Hey, for all of Bush's law-and-order rhetoric, it's only getting worse. Hysteria over the inner cities--not to mention the rest of the country--is at an all-time high. Fear of violent crime has prompted a sharp turn to the right in terms of popular feelings on criminal rights. An effective Democrat should be able to tap into that fear and make it work for him. Frustration over the general lack of safety in Bush's "kindler, gentler America" should naturally take itself out on the people running the government, namely Bush.

Remember gun control? Bush would prefer you forgot it. After all, he is the President who defended the sale of AK-47's on the grounds that they could be used for legitimate hunting. This issue works in much the same way as crime: popular fear=Democratic success. And who could possible disagree with banning semi-automatic weapons? Bush tried, and he sounded like an idiot. No doubt, NRA funding will force Bush to continue to try to defend what is popularly indefensible, leaving this issue solely for the Democrats. Even Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill, which Bush opposed.

Taxes. Well, this one can never work for the Democrats--not with their spend, spend, spend reputation--but at least this time it will not work against them either. Bush's rather sudden post-election flip-flop from "Read my lips: No new taxes" to "Just ignore this tax increase" has robbed him of legitimacy on this very touchy subject. America is not likely to forget the greatest campaign lie in recent history.

Then there's abortion. Bush used to be totally anti-choice. Now, with Republicans looking for a younger voter base, Bush is only mostly anti-choice. But a pro-choice Democrat could still milk this issue for all it's worth.

And, ah yes, the big one, the economy. Reagan's favorite question in 1984 was "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" That will hardly work for Bush with the American economy floundering as it is. He's trying for an election-year recovery, of course, with the tiresome executive tradition of asking the Fed to lower interest rates every four years, but quick improvement is unlikely, and the recession has dragged on for so long that it has become a part of the American mindset. (The recession is not completely the President's fault, of course, but that never stopped the American public from blaming it on him before.)

THERE ARE OTHER issues that the Democrats can exploit, but these are the top ones. The deteriorating educational system is a fair attack on the "education President," but it's unclear how much Americans care about education. Ditto for the environment. The budget deficit is a traditional attack, but it doesn't stir up passion, either. Emphasizing crime, gun control, taxes, abortion and the economy is the best bet.

There isn't much to debate on the upcoming election. If the focus is on foreign policy, Bush will win, few questions asked (the few being those mentioned above). But if voters come to believe that domestic issues take precedence, Bush has nothing to say.

Contrary to popular belief, the Democrats have a chance in '92. What they need to do now is believe it. If a Democrat can convince Americans to look at America, he just might win.

Tom Hixson '94 predicts a Cubs/Red Sox World Series for '92.