Basking in Reagan's Troubles

By James Kelly

Now all the Democrats need is a program of their own

By all appearances, it was an oldtime Democratic love fest. The party faithful, breaking with recent practice, were actually faithful: they did not split up into bitter factions or call one another names. Presidential hopefuls preened, smiled and whispered sweet nothings into delegates' ears. To top it all off, there was a rousing speech by a Kennedy. "The dawn is near, our hearts are bright," intoned Senator Ted of Massachusetts. "Our cause is right, and our day is coming again."

Indeed, as some 900 Democrats headed home from their national midterm conference in Philadelphia last week, they could be forgiven for letting out a cheer or two. Twenty months after Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party stunned them at the polls, they are looking to make gains in the elections this fall and to recapture the White House in 1984. The reason for their optimism: Ronald Reagan. His performance in the Oval Office, especially his failure so far to revive the economy, has become a potent campaign weapon.

Yet for all the sweetness and light in Philadelphia, many party leaders are uneasy. In an attempt to project a united front, the conference approved a raft of bland policy positions that will win few converts to the Democratic cause. Aside from a resolution simplifying the income tax system, the platform is a model of artful dodges and hedges. "There seems to be a feeling that our good spirits and Reagan's problems will be enough, but they are not," observed Congressman Leon Panetta of California. "We've got to come up with bold new alternatives."

The underlying problem is that the party is badly, if quietly, split. In one camp are the veteran liberals who have been largely responsible for shaping Democratic policy since the New Deal. These traditionalists, exemplified by Kennedy and, to a lesser extent, by former Vice President Walter Mondale, remain committed to the idea that the Federal Government should continue to provide a panoply of social services for the needy. As Kennedy put it in Philadelphia, "We will be, as we have been before and at our best, an advocate for the average man and woman, a voice for the voiceless, a partisan for people who suffer and are weak."

In the other camp are the so-called neoliberals. They reject the notion that government can solve social problems by throwing money at them. Instead, their emphasis is on formulating national policies to promote economic growth. The neoliberals are also called high-tech Democrats, for their emphasis on steering the economy away from troubled industries like automobiles and steel to high-technology firms specializing in microchips and computers.* They include Senators Gary Hart of Colorado, Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, Bill Bradley of New Jersey and Congressmen Panetta and Richard Gephardt of Missouri.

Tsongas, for example, favors helping manufacturing firms with industrial revenue bonds and Urban Development Action Grants. If some social programs have to be curtailed to cut the deficit and make the economy healthy again, fine. "You can talk about all the social programs you want, but there is no substitute for a viable economy," contends Tsongas. "This may take us into conservative Republican turf, but if that's what it takes, so be it."

That is exactly what disturbs many of the old-line liberals, who fear that the high-tech Democrats will neglect the party's traditional commitment to the poor and minorities. Kennedy alluded to this in Philadelphia. "Rethinking our ideas should never be an excuse for retreating from our ideals," he declared. "The last thing this nation needs hi the 1980s is two Republican parties." Mondale does not criticize the neoliberals so strongly, but he is nevertheless wary of their proposals. Says he: "You can't have a banner with a microchip on it."

But the neoliberals cannot be dismissed so lightly. In a party often criticized for lacking fresh ideas, the high-tech Democrats are at least offering alternatives; they are not simply attacking Reagan or sitting back and hoping that the troubled economy wins them votes. Some of their proposals may be too provocative, too risky or downright unworkable. But the time is right for creativity. Concedes Mondale: "The people don't like what Reagan has done to this country, but they don't want to go back either. They want a third alternative."

Many of the neoliberal proposals, however, have a major drawback: they are too complex and bloodless to be easily translated into catchy campaign themes or stirring slogans. Ask Gary Hart about his plans, and he begins talking about "industrial modernization policy" and "maximum trade potential."

Indeed, by far the most effective performers at the Philadelphia meeting were Kennedy and Mondale, both of whom delivered traditional stemwinders attacking Reagan and reaffirming the party's liberal principles. In his 30-min. address, Mondale, usually a dull, plodding speaker, was interrupted by applause 27 times. In his 40-min. speech, Kennedy, 7 Ibs. lighter and sporting new aviator glasses, was stopped 57 times by ovations. Some of this enthusiasm was due to the fact that midterm conclaves are usually packed with party activists, who tend to be liberal. Even so, the response served notice that Kennedy and Mondale remain the front runners for the party's presidential nomination in 1984. Although Kennedy outshone his rival by several watts, Mondale drew raves by delivering a much better speech than was expected. The four other candidates who spoke--Senators Hart, John Glenn of Ohio, Fritz Rollings of South Carolina and Alan Cranston of California--turned in respectable performances but failed to fire up the crowd. Glenn looked on the bright side: "I didn't see anyone asleep." The fifth hopeful, former Governor Reubin Askew of Florida, chose not to make an address, pursuing instead the sort of quiet, behind-the-scenes strategy that helped win Jimmy Carter the nomination in 1976.

If the Democrats cannot agree on a new and more relevant philosophy by 1984, they will have missed a splendid opportunity. With a conservative Republican in the White House, the Democrats do not have to reward their traditional constituencies with new programs. "Reagan is absolutely ensuring us that we have all the blacks, environmentalists, women and labor union members," claims Jim Johnson, an aide to Mondale. "We don't have to be on the frontier issues any more." Thus the party is free to overhaul shopworn policies and get them in line with the demands and limits of the 1980s. "Voters want a balance between budget cutting and spending," says Washington Pollster Peter Hart. "They are looking for equilibrium. The trouble is that Democrats tend to fulfill one half of that equation and Republicans the other."

For the immediate future, attacking Reagan is probably sufficient to win votes. Hart expects the Democrats to pick up about 20 seats in the House--above average for the opposition party in the first midterm election of a new Administration--and thinks they will hold their own in the Senate. The Democrats are also counting on picking up four or five governorships, primarily in the Midwest.

But for the long run, and certainly for the 1984 presidential election, the Democrats need a new national agenda. If they do not develop one, and Reagan happens to be faring poorly in the polls, the party might take refuge in doctrinaire liberalism. That would make for an emotionally satisfying convention in 1984--think of the cheers for a white-knight liberal saving the Republic from the "rich man's President." But if Hart's polls are correct, such a candidate would likely be too left-leaning for the general electorate. "The 1980 election showed that the Democratic Party was not perceived as the party of Middle America," says Paul Tipps, chairman of the Ohio Democrats. "That lesson, I think, has been learned." As with all lessons, however, the real test is whether it can be put into practice. --By James Kelly. Reported by John F. Stacks/Washington and Evan Thomas/Philadelphia

*The high-techers have also been dubbed the Atari Democrats, but at least one of them would like to change that nickname. "We prefer Apple Democrats," jokes Representative Tim Wirth of Colorado, referring to the successful home-computer company. "It sounds more American."

With reporting by John F. Stacks, Evan Thomas

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.