Outs Spare No Think Tank in Quest for Taste of Power : Democrats: They believe they can redefine themselves back into the White House. But you can’t beat something with nothing.

“Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It’s time for the game that’s captured the imagination of everyone inside the Beltway--’Redefine the Democrats’! Competing are America’s favorite Democratic politicians, lobbyists, commentators, celebrities and academics. The winner will be the one who thinks up the best way to take that most valuable of all prizes, the Oval Office!”

Put down that remote control and relax. “Redefine the Democrats” is not quite ready for prime time, but the pilots and miniseries that usually herald the onset of a new program have already made their appearances. They are the growing number of columns and opinions, and modifications of party rules--such as the decision to move up the California primary--the usual prelude to the presidential season. A lead time of more than 2 1/2 years is not excessive when you consider the magnitude of the Democrats’ problems.

First, there is the extraordinary popularity of President Bush. Democratic pessimists say it should be assumed that Bush’s popularity will endure, and they hint that the only realistic thing to do is forget 1992 and plan for 1996. Optimists counter with the argument that there is nothing so fragile as presidential popularity and that a Soviet military coup against Mikhail Gorbachev or a particularly nasty upturn in inflation or unemployment could unseat Bush.

All Democrats, regardless of their political temperament, agree that you can’t best someone with no one and, perhaps of more immediate concern, you can’t beat something with nothing. There is, accordingly, an almost-universal conviction that the Democrats will continue to suffer reverses until they adopt policies in harmony with the desires of the American people.

This quest for a political Rosetta stone goes on at half a dozen or so Democratic or party-connected think tanks in Washington, in dozens of House and Senate offices, and informally in the nation’s capital wherever Democrats gather. The discussions are typically high-powered and center on such issues as where Democrats ought to position themselves on the Bush Administration’s proposal to cut capital gains taxes or Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s proposed rollback of Social Security contributions. The debates are also challenging philosophically, and find liberal Democrats urging the party to veer even more strongly to the left and centrist groups counseling moderate policies that don’t offend the middle class. These debates are also, sadly, quite irrelevant.

Blessed with an abundance of brainpower and the leisure time granted those out of power, Washington-based Democrats believe that they can think themselves back into the White House. Policy papers are as plentiful as spring blossoms and about as long-lived in their influence. Democratic thinkers have one on every subject, from Japanese competition to day care. They beautifully illustrate psychologist Abraham Maslow’s axiom: When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

There are two underlying realities that make all of this intellectual calisthenics a little pathetic. The first is that in a two-party system, the party out of power is no more than standby equipment. If there were a reason for voters to turn to the Democrats for a President, they would surely do so. But voters, being rational creatures, have no reason to abandon the GOP, barring some national calamity. Perhaps that is the reason pulses always quicken in Democratic congressional offices on the Friday when the Bureau of Labor Statistics issues its unemployment figures. Only in national ruination does there lie any certain hope for the Democrats.

The second melancholy fundamental is that the Democratic primaries are guaranteed to select for the party’s nominee the most liberal white candidates with Jesse Jackson always running a strong second. Grass-roots Democratic activists--the people likely to venture forth on a frosty Iowa night for a precinct caucus--are no microcosm of the American people. They are vastly more liberal than the electorate and guaranteed to set the party on a course that will almost surely collide with the more conservative November voters.

To dilute the effect of liberal domination of the early primaries, the party geniuses invented Super Tuesday, hoping that a hypothetically more conservative electorate dominated by white males would rescue the party’s soul from the lefties. The problem with this strategy is that white Southern males have abandoned the Democratic Party and will not do it the favor of salvaging moderate candidates in presidential primaries. Those in Dixie who do turn out in large numbers seem to be black Democrats eager to cast ballots for Jesse Jackson or the most liberal white candidate. The problem is that many Democratic leaders don’t care much for the choices made by the party’s most loyal and dependable voters.

Desperate to escape from what they see as the sectarian clutches of small-state activists, the Democratic Party has modified its bylaws to allow California voters an earlier, and presumably more influential role in the nomination process. The decision made this week in Washington by the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee would permit California to advance its primary date from June 2 to March 3. The California state Senate is due to act on the change, which has already been approved by the Assembly, and the party’s action improves the chances for passage.

If the Democrats think that a March primary in California will produce a presidential nominee more acceptable in a general election, they might consider that the last time the California voters had a major influence on a Democratic nominee, back in 1972, they ended up picking George McGovern over Hubert Humphrey. Apart from that, what makes these party pork-choppers think that California primary voters will act any differently from those in Iowa or New Hampshire? It’s not the size of the state that determines the quality of a nominee; it is the nature of the electorate. Big-state liberals will vote for a liberal nominee every bit as reliably as those in tiny New Hampshire. If you move a hot dog from a lunch counter to a banquet table, it’s still a hot dog.

So a party whose remaining hope is that the other party will wreck the country faces a dilemma: If the bottom is out of the tub and the economy collapses, virtually anyone will do as an alternative to the Republicans. If, however, the economy chugs along reasonably, anyone they come up with, no matter how bold or intelligent, will lose. If there is prosperity in 1996, the Democrats will get bounced by Dan Quayle.

Holding seminars, retreats and juggling primaries are harmless enough as political foreplay, but Democrats in Washington should not delude themselves that these are anything more than stimulating activities with which to while away the hours until more significant events pave the way for their return to power.