Democrats Losing Again: Another Crisis Gives Bush a Boost

Ever since the U.S. triumph in the Persian Gulf War, it has been clear that Democrats would have trouble mounting a strong challenge to President Bush’s reelection in 1992 unless they got outside help--something like an economic tailspin.

Instead, they got the last thing they needed as a result of the Kremlin coup: Another international crisis that propels Bush to the forefront of the world stage, rallies the American public behind him and undercuts the fundamental Democratic argument that he should spend more time on domestic policy and less on foreign affairs.

“We were just beginning to get some attention paid to unemployment and the economy when this thing put foreign policy back on the front burner,” complained Virginia Democratic Chairman Paul Goldman, top adviser to L. Douglas Wilder, his state’s governor and likely Democratic presidential prospect.

To be sure, no one knows where the fateful actions taken by the Soviet hard-liners who deposed President Mikhail S. Gorbachev ultimately will lead. Some Democrats argue that in time, events will demonstrate--as New Jersey Rep. Robert G. Torricelli put it--that President Bush missed a “historic opportunity” to bolster democracy in the Soviet Union by failing to give Gorbachev more economic support sooner.

“The Russian people had to see that they were getting economic benefits (from perestroika) as well as the benefits of democracy” to give Gorbachev the public support he needed to stay in power, Torricelli contended. Unlike most members of his party, Torricelli, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, voted last January to authorize the President to use force against Iraq.

Recalling the potent negative impact on the Democratic Party of the bitter debate over “who lost China” to the Communists in the 1950s, Torricelli predicted that Bush and the GOP could be hurt by a similar argument over “Who lost Gorbachev?”

“Once the dust settles, the coup potentially raises some serious questions about Bush’s handling of foreign policy,” said Tim Raftis, adviser to the Iowa senator and Democratic presidential contender, Tom Harkin.

“The ‘new world order’ isn’t working out like it was supposed to,” Raftis said, pointing out that Bush’s arch-enemy, Saddam Hussein, is still in power in Iraq, where his government issued a statement praising the ouster of Gorbachev.

And Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Les Aspin, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said that the replacement of Gorbachev by a hard-line junta threatens Bush’s chances of maintaining the string of foreign policy successes that have been the mainstay of his political support. “Nearly every one of President Bush’s hot button international issues depended on active Soviet cooperation,” Aspin said in a statement. “That won’t happen now.”

House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, whose proposal over a year ago for the United States to extend significant economic aid to the Soviet Union was derided by Bush, said that his party’s presidential candidates can link Bush’s foreign policy problems to his weaknesses in domestic policy.

“His inability to deal with the economy is crippling our ability to truly play the role of world leader,” Gephardt said.

Impressive as all these arguments may sound in theory, however, Democrats concede that it will be hard to make them work in reality. In part this is because of the President’s role, shaped both by the Constitution and by centuries of tradition, as the commander in chief and unifying symbol of the nation.

“He is the one person who can execute foreign policy,” said Al From, president of the Democratic Leadership Council, which has been striving to get Democrats to give greater prominence to foreign policy issues. “Right now he is President Bush, not candidate Bush.”

Citing polling figures on which his party enjoys more public confidence in dealing with national security, Republican pollster Ed Goeas said: “Democrats have no credibility on that issue. They can criticize all they want, but all they are doing is shouting into a hole.”

“There is no downside on this issue for Bush,” agreed conservative political consultant Craig Shirley. As for Democratic criticism of Bush for not giving more help to Gorbachev, Shirley said: “That’s the same approach they use on domestic policy--just throw money at a problem.”

Also, the expected escalation of East-West tensions is likely to crimp the Democrats’ style on the presidential stump by making it harder for them to sell the idea of funding domestic programs by cutting military spending.

“It does give hard-liners more ammunition to keep pushing for military spending increases,” said Harkin aide Raftis. His candidate has been claiming that he could save up to $50 billion a year as President by transferring U.S. troops now garrisoned in Germany to a U.S.-based rapid deployment force.

“Why do we need troops defending Europe from the Soviet Union when they can’t defend themselves against themselves any longer?” he has been asking in a line that may need to be dropped as a result of events in Moscow.