Dear Democrats: To regain the White House, read this

Sunday, September 21, 2003

Having argued last Sunday ("The Bush Delusion") that it is madness for Democrats to depend on appeals to prejudice to beat George W. Bush, I am honor bound to put forward an alternative strategy. So here goes.

	John G. Craig Jr. is the former editor of the Post-Gazette (jcraig@post-gazette.com).

Clinton had it right. Hold the center and leave those who burn with a white-hot flame to Ralph Nader and the Greens. That political center, the latest evidence suggests, as Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center for the People and Press noted this week, does not think the president is doing an acceptable job on a number of fronts, including the budget, health care, the economy and energy policy. His favorable ratings are respectively 32 percent, 38 percent, 41 percent and 42, which Kohut says are "dismal."

The problem, of course, is that events change and what looks like an opportunity today may not be one 12 months from now. There is also the transcendent reality of terrorism.

As Kohut observes: "The president still benefits from the transformation of his image that occurred after 9/11. Three-quarters of the public see him as a decisive and forceful leader, according to a recent Gallup poll, compared with only 55 percent before the attacks."

Yet that said, as Kohut's numbers suggest, while three out of four Americans believe the world is more dangerous place than it was two years ago, 57 percent of the public also believes that it is more important for Bush to focus on the economy than to fight terrorism. This recommends a Democratic strategy that focuses on Bush's policies.

Such a course will not be as much fun as Bozo the Clown impersonations or produce the best sound bites, but it ought to be productive. The Democrats should make the president talk specifics on policy, talk specifics on policy and talk specifics on policy.

"War on terrorism." "Homeland security." What exactly do these phrases mean, Mr. President, and where are the concepts that undergird them leading us? Mr. Bush and the Republicans win the patriotism argument, so you do not attack post-9/11 acts head-on, nor appear hopeful, as does the hard left, that Iraq turns out to be a political albatross.

You also avoid generalities like "the United States can't be the world's policeman." The United States is a pre-eminent power and many nations for many reasons have come to depend on its military and political power for many things.

But there is little evidence that the Bush administration has thought through the implications of its "war" and its new global military strategy that gets troops out of Korea and Western Europe and re-deploys them in smaller, mobile units in Central Asia and the Middle East. There are significantly unexplored political and economic consequences of these initiatives and it is the responsibility of a patriot to challenge them.

Homeland security is another big target of opportunity. It may even be a house of cards. What are we getting for all the money and inconvenience?

Smoke out our good friend Tom Ridge and get him talking about what an orange alert is in fact and what being able to invoke one does for the citizens of Bangor and Boise. We are two-plus years past the heat of the moment, and it is reasonable to ask about specific long-term divisions of labor between the feds and local law enforcement agencies. Are we going to keep paying a hell of a bill for county police overtime at the airport indefinitely, merely because Washington says we have to? What's the plan?

As the polls indicate, the economy is the public's major worry, but my guess is that 12 months from now it will not be. On the other hand, the costs of the social safety net, whether it be prescription drugs, Social Security, all other health care and the related subject of insurance remains a huge time bomb. There is no other issue that provides the long-term political opportunity for the Democratic Party that does this one.

As the Clintons learned early on, you risk political peril if you try to deal with it holistically. But the present system is not sustainable. And the administration's tepid appeals to market solutions as part of a strategy of procrastination will not stand close examination, particularly when its tax cuts and attendant budget deficits exacerbate the situation.

Environmental matters are another subject that provides political opportunity, if -- and it is always the big if with the Democrats -- the radicals can be kept on the sidelines and the public debate is about realistic economic choices and not a passion play between good and evil. (See drilling for oil, anywhere.) There are many good reasons to reduce emissions to further clean up the air, stop overfishing and befoulment of the oceans, protect forests and energy costs.

A candidate and a party that can talk specifics in each of these instances -- as well as deal on a case-by-case basis with policy choices in the war on terror, homeland security, Social Security and the cost of health -- have a political opportunity. Throw in 12 more months of a soft economy, and my bet is that the Democrats win.

E-mail this story   Print this story