COLUMN LEFT / TED VAN DYK : The Democrats Lose Strauss, Gain a Purpose : The new ambassador might do well in the new Soviet Union, but he failed his party.

Former Democratic Chairman Robert Strauss’ nomination by the Bush Administration as ambassador to the Soviet Union may or may not be good for U.S.-Soviet relations. It will probably do less politically for the Administration than it might think. It almost certainly will be good for the Democratic Party.

Strauss has followed the money-is-power path to prominence in Democratic politics. He began as a political fund-raiser in Texas and became Democratic Party treasurer under former chairman Larry O’Brien. In the wake of Sen. George McGovern’s landslide 1972 presidential defeat, Strauss gained the chairmanship. He became Jimmy Carter’s special trade representative despite an utter lack of qualifications and, in 1980, managed Carter’s landslide loss to Ronald Reagan.

Since 1981 his hole card has been his friendship with both influential congressional Democrats from Texas and Texas Republicans George Bush and James A. Baker III.

In 1988, within a period of days, Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal all ran major stories proclaiming a likely Democratic convention deadlock, with Strauss as the broker or even nominee. It was all self-generated hype and came to nothing. But it confirmed Strauss as an artful courter of the press. Even when fooled and used by him, the media treat Strauss with comparative gentleness because he’s the first to admit that much of what he peddles is horse manure. It’s hard to be tough on a guy who warned you not to believe him going in.

Strauss’ darker side is shared by many self-made men who come up the political money-path. He tends to think that politics is a game only of power and self-interest, and habitually scorns those who believe it should related to real ideas and a national agenda.

As Democratic treasurer, Strauss derided efforts to develop an alternative agenda during the Nixon years and in 1970 tried to kill party statements critical of the Vietnam War. Later, as chairman, his policy advisory body was instructed to hold no meetings and issue no proclamations.

Along with former Rep. Tony Coelho of California, Strauss was a principal force during the 1980s in forming the money-culture, special-interest orientation that mires the Democrats to this day. Neither Coelho nor Strauss would see anything wrong with this. After all, they would argue, Democrats need money, various interests have it and there is nothing wrong with taking the money and doing a few favors. Strauss’ law firm and clients have been particularly active donors and money-raisers on behalf of candidates who could do them some good.

None of this would seem to make Strauss a likely candidate to succeed as U.S. ambassador to Moscow in a time of crisis in the Soviet Union. Not necessarily. Soviet leaders have always shown a soft spot for “real capitalists” like Armand Hammer and Strauss--deal-makers and hustlers who made no secret of their “let’s-make-some-money-together” orientation.

In fact, Strauss’ first actions as ambassador are likely to be a continuation of what comes naturally for him--hatching business deals in the Soviet Union involving his present clients and other investors and businessmen on the lookout for markets and profit. The Soviets, desperate for investment and hard currency, might love him.

Strauss also might succeed in the other, larger aspects of the job. In service as Carter’s trade negotiator and, later, Middle East negotiator, Strauss served with neither distinction nor failure. But he was shrewd enough to begin both jobs by bringing aboard experienced specialists to handle policy while he pressed the flesh and talked to the media.

But if the Administration expects Strauss to do it much good at home, it will probably be disappointed. Any Strauss sales pitch for U.S. billions to bail out the Soviet economy is likely to have little effect among his erstwhile Democratic colleagues. They’ll judge the request on its merit and treat Strauss as irrelevant to the decision.

As Strauss, like his patron John Connally before him, moves into a Republican Administration, the principal winner is likely to be the Democratic Party.

Strauss’ removal from day-to-day party activity will remove a major force arguing against an activist, progressive Democratic agenda. His entertaining anecdotes and high spirits will be missed. But not his scornful put-downs of other former party chairmen and Democrats who are liberal or agenda-driven and his belief, at bottom, that money rules all.