Bush Needs Down-Home Points--Fast

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a man of wealth and patrician background who never pretended to be one of the boys. But he had the knack of making ordinary Americans feel that he was on their side.

So far George Bush, the product of a similar background, has demonstrated no such ability. Unless he learns how, it looks probable that he will lose in November.

By conventional standards the vice president should be in clover. Never since World War II have America’s relations with Moscow been as positive. Meanwhile, the economy is in its sixth year of expansion. Unemployment is at the lowest level since 1974.

Yet the latest polls show Gov. Michael S. Dukakis leading Bush by 16 percentage points--the reverse of the situation only two months ago. Fully 28% of those who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984, including large numbers of blue-collar workers, now prefer Dukakis over Bush.

With the election still five months away, the situation may change. Dukakis has problems of his own. But for Bush the signs are ominous.

Bush has no doubt been hurt by the Administration’s mishandling of the Panamanian situation and by the ethical quagmire surrounding Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III. A more important factor, ironically, may be that the mellowing of U.S.-Soviet frictions has made Bush’s superior credentials on foreign affairs seem less relevant.

Recent polls indicate that voters now trust the Democrats more than they do the Republicans to handle the most important problems facing the country. And the problems attracting the most concern are not national defense or U.S.-Soviet relations, but drugs, AIDS, the cost of health care and, very importantly, the economy.

As an incumbent vice president, Bush is more inclined to point with pride than to view with alarm. But to a significant minority of voters, including many who voted Republican last time, Bush’s boasts of a strong economy ring hollow.

American families on the average are a little better off now than a few years ago--but only because more wives have gone to work. People have to run harder to keep from falling behind.

The low jobless figures mask the fact that many workers have been displaced by plant closings, frequently by companies moving production overseas, and are now working at lower pay.

Even among those who are doing well there is growing worry that the country is losing control over its economic future.

About 10% of U.S. manufacturing already is owned by foreign interests, and the proportion is growing. Of the world’s 16 largest banks, none are American. In California, five of the 11 largest banks are Japanese.

The shift in global economic power has real-life significance.

Most European or Japanese owners of U.S. plants prefer to bring in components from their own countries.

Our own Federal Reserve system now has limited control over the interest rates that we pay on home loans. The cost and availability of credit for U.S. business is increasingly determined by foreign financial institutions whose first loyalties may be to companies at home that compete with the American loan applicant.

The Administration’s reaction has been mostly ideological prattle about the sanctity of free markets and the evils of government interference.

Reagan, who never worried about the “golden parachutes” awarded to executives displaced by mergers or cutbacks, vetoed the trade bill because of a provision requiring that workers be given advance notice when a plant is to be closed.

Bush has done little to distance himself from the Administration posture on this or other economic issues.

Budgetary reality being what it is, neither Bush nor anyone else can responsively promise cures that involve big spending increases. But a lot could be done without spending money. For example:

--Bush could score points with working Americans by applauding their remarkable wage restraint of recent years--and demanding, in the name of shared sacrifice, that corporate executives stop giving themselves huge pay raises that are patently unjustified by performance.

--He could support proposals requiring full disclosure of foreign holdings to make sure that U.S. interests are being served.

--The vice president could applaud firms that invest more at home and less abroad, and could criticize those that raise prices and enhance profits instead of trying to recapture markets lost to overseas competitors.

--He could do more to telegraph compassion for the millions of Americans who have no health insurance with which to pay sky-high medical bills.

So far Bush is not doing such things--at least not audibly. The ties of loyalty to the President, the pro-big business traditions of the GOP and his own lack of flair for populist rhetoric are seemingly too strong.

But if he continues to come through as a rich guy who thinks that everything is hunky-dory, the next President will likely be a fellow named Dukakis.