POLITICS : Power vs. Change: the Dimension of Foley’s Campaign Ordeal : House Speaker’s reelection bid is deemed a tossup. His GOP foe, aided by conservative groups, capitalizes on dissatisfaction with Congress.

There is a keen appreciation for political power here on the remote eastern border of the state of Washington, a landscape of arid farmlands and piney foothills. For years, people in these parts enjoyed more than their share of it.

But what is power compared to change, they now ask themselves.

So here is Democratic Rep. Thomas S. Foley--30 years in Congress, Speaker of the House, second in line to succeed the President--battling for his political survival the only way he knows how. He is bringing home a slice of bacon. He is at a press conference announcing a federal grant to help provide 33 new law enforcement officers for his district.

“For comparison,” he tells his constituents in his jowly deadpan, “Spokane has a higher grant than San Francisco.”

Power.

Meanwhile, here is his opponent, mild-mannered, would-be giant slayer George Nethercutt, the Republican. He has found Foley’s glaring weak spot: Power has a bad name. And a sizable chunk of American conservatism has jumped in on Nethercutt’s side to bring Foley down--the National Rifle Assn., the National Taxpayer’s Union, term limits advocates, the Christian right.

“We don’t need a Speaker. . . . We need a listener,” Nethercutt proclaims on billboards all over town.

Change.

All politics is not local. Not now. Sometimes the itch for something new is unbearably strong, and voters feel the deep need to scratch--even if it hurts.

This is Foley’s 1994 ordeal, and it has produced one of America’s most celebrated electoral tossups.

For weeks now, the polls have shown that Foley is in danger of losing; history says he won’t.

Not since 1860 has a Speaker of the House been defeated. But it has been a good long while since voters have been so agitated with their Congress and their federal government.

“This race is not about anything except change vs. power. There is no other dimension to it,” says Terry Holt, a Washington, D.C., operative brought in to aid Nethercutt’s move into the political big leagues.

Foley’s 5th Congressional District always has been independent-minded and somewhat conservative.

It is about one-third rural, more than 50% college educated, virtually all white and uncommonly dependent on Washington, D.C.

Farmers here count on government for irrigation water and the usual assortment of agricultural supports. Fairchild Air Force Base is a big employer and has escaped any threat of closure. The Colville National Forest is managed by the Department of Agriculture and produces mill jobs. Native American interests fall under the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The epic dams of the Columbia River are operated by government and quasi-government agencies and provide the cheapest electricity in America.

This is Foley’s domain, and he has quietly ruled it as he saw fit, following former House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr.’s “all politics is local” adage. Federal bureaucrats moved in these parts knowing that the Speaker’s office would be watching.

But the quality of Foley’s local stewardship is barely a subtext in this election campaign. Helped along by a froth of broadcast advertising and talk radio, voters seem fixed on the more abstract matters of America’s Angst--its direction, its leadership.

No longer confident of government, swing voters seem drawn, at least so far, to a fuzzy consensus behind Nethercutt’s simple call for less government. Send a message, kick ‘em in the pants, they say.

“If we win, we’ll make history,” Nethercutt replies by way of encouragement.

One recent poll shows him leading by 10 points. Another shows Foley pulling almost even.

In the past, people of Eastern Washington--who feel isolated from their own state Capitol, not to mention the U.S. Capitol--have defended their congressional clout. Twice in recent years as the brush fire of term-limit initiatives swept the nation, the 5th District voted against them.

Foley led these campaigns. He warned constituents that they would be yielding influence in Congress to states without term limits. Californians, with all their votes in the House, would trample Washington’s weakened delegation and divert water south from the Columbia River, he said.

This November, Foley’s hopes rest chiefly on persuading these swing voters to again cast a pragmatic ballot in their own interest rather than following their angry, idealistic impulses.

His task is made difficult because Nethercutt is proving to be an attractive candidate, more so than Foley’s other recent foes.

At 49, Nethercutt is a civil attorney who contracts services to small towns and represents families in adoption matters. He headed the Spokane chapter of the Diabetes Foundation and helped found a crisis nursery for abused children. And he can claim Washington, D.C., connections as former chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). He has maintained a friendship with GOP political consultant Edward J. Rollins, who is advising Nethercutt on strategy.

In tone, Nethercutt’s campaign is measured. But the overall campaign against Foley is not. The NRA, a group crusading for term limits, the National Taxpayer’s Union and a Virginia-based political action committee are raising the rhetorical heat against the Speaker.

If they follow through on their pledges, these groups and others will likely spend as much against Foley as Nethercutt is spending on his own behalf.

Foley is likely to match the opposition dollar for dollar, making this a $3-million race in a district where broadcast advertising sells for a song.

But he appears uncomfortable with the demands of running as the underdog in this era of cutthroat partisanship.

At 65, the Speaker is by nature a courtly, understated politician who likes to think of himself as above making personal attacks.

But Democratic political pros have warned Foley that he will lose unless he gets tough in these closing days before the Nov. 8 election. Tony Coelho, a political adviser to the White House, told reporters that Foley needed to start running an “aggressive, professional” campaign to begin “educating” voters about Nethercutt, which is political-speak for “slash and burn.”

This Foley has begun to do, although the results are questionable.

Foley has charged that Nethercutt’s position on congressional spending bills would result in cuts for such things as child immunizations. Nethercutt scoffed. Would people believe that of a man whose own daughter had diabetes and who had his record of supporting children’s programs?

Foley said Nethercutt was against reducing the size of the federal government. This on the questionable ground that the GOP candidate opposed the anti-crime bill passed by Congress, which is funded by a previously approved cut in the federal work force. But will voters find that a credible charge against a Republican who campaigns for less government, less taxes, less regulation and less welfare?

A more persuasive tack may be Foley’s repeated accusation that Nethercutt is a pawn of conservative special interests, like the NRA. “I don’t think people in this district need outside groups coming in and telling them how to vote,” Foley said.

To which Nethercutt’s campaign replies: Who gets more special-interest backing than the Speaker?

On these matters in this strange year, the leadership of the House appears to rest.