Quit Running Against Reagan and Start Running as Democrats

What do Democrats stand for?

(a) Economic growth;

(b) Fiscal responsibility;

(c) A strong national defense;

(d) Competence and integrity;

(e) All of the above, but who cares?

Based on what the average voter is seeing and hearing these days, (e) is the correct answer. But it’s a loser. With the election less than 13 months away, the Democrats had better find a theme that differentiates them from Republicans and inspires more than national yawns. So far, there’s no beef. Not even relish.

The Democrats’ biggest problem is someone who’s not even running for President. His name is Ronald Reagan. After seven years of vigorous repetition, his themes have seeped into America’s unconsciousness and shaped the public debate. Are you for or against a bloated government bureaucracy? Do you favor economic growth or stagnation? Should we stand up to the Russians or be sitting ducks?

So long as these are understood as the choices America faces, the Democrats are cornered. No matter how brilliant their rhetoric or how compelling their proposals, they’re still trapped within Reagan’s terms of debate. American politics often turns on the prevailing questions rather than the best solutions.

The Democrats’ hands are also tied by Reagan’s 1981 tax cut and subsequent military buildup, which have created record budget deficits and plunged America deeply into debt to the rest of the world--now totaling about $350 billion. The budget crisis requires tax increases and spending cuts. This seems an unpropitious time for Democrats to offer bold new initiatives for how government can remedy the nation’s ills--especially if they’re also trying to appear fiscally responsible.

Finally, Democrats are hobbled by Reagan’s extraordinary luck. We’re well into the fifth year of an economic expansion that has created 15 million new jobs and cut unemployment down to under 6% of the work force.

Most Americans neither know nor care that we’re skating on thin ice: Our dependence on foreign capital makes us highly vulnerable to the whims of investors in Tokyo or Bonn, who can push up American interest rates and plunge us into recession at a moment’s notice. But so long as no cracks have yet appeared, the ice seems comfortably thick.

The Soviets, meanwhile, have got themselves a new leader who seems bent on restoring economic growth by, among other things, economizing on weapons. But to many Americans, Gorbachev’s recent willingness to bargain over arms makes it appear that Reagan’s hard line has finally paid off.

So what are the Democrats to do? Stop campaigning against Ronald Reagan. Democrats will never convince the American voter that they are more competent than Reagan in doing what Reagan has done best--shrink social programs and make bigger weapons. And when Democrats emphasize their integrity over all else, they invite the press to magnify every small slip-up--like a campaign director who rats on an opponent.

Instead, Democrats should try to change the terms of debate, and talk about what Democrats do best:

(a) Redistribute wealth from the Big Boys in the Back Rooms to the rest of us (what about a more progressive income tax and a higher tax on inherited wealth?);

(b) Protect children, the aged, the environment and everything else in our society that otherwise gets trampled upon or ignored;

(c) Deliver things that average Americans need--like good day care for our preschoolers, good schools for our kids, health insurance for all of us, low-cost housing, and safe and reliable mass transportation;

(d) Refashion our workplaces to give us more job security and a greater financial stake in the fruits of our labors.

The correct answer for Democrats is:

(e) All of the above, which has the best chance of attracting votes from all of us below.