Getting Down To Business

Finally, there has been a sign that the 1992 presidential campaign will find relevance after all. Between the Republican Convention and Labor Day, the traditional start of the general election contest, odds of that happening seemed slight. George Bush and his minions seemed fixated on "family values," Bill Clinton's draft record and a deceptive numbers game over tax increases in Arkansas. The Democrats sounded on the verge of declaring class warfare -- trying to scare the elderly, veterans and students with unfounded charges that Bush would savage programs on which they depend. But suddenly last Thursday, Bush jerked attention away from all that and onto the issue many Americans suspected he had been doing almost anything to avoid: the nation's economic future. Overnight, the President had moved toward a clarification of the choice between his approach and that of his rival.

In a speech to the Economic Club of Detroit, Bush presented an "Agenda for American Renewal" with more cohesiveness than he had shown heretofore. Then he aired prime-time commercials on all the networks to offer voters copies of his program -- a technique Clinton has been using with success since last winter in New Hampshire.

The core of Bush's pitch was hardly surprising. Sounding like a born-again preacher of Reaganomics, the President promised to "stimulate entrepreneurial capitalism, not punish it." He argued for lower taxes, less federal spending, less regulation. To make America an "export superpower," Bush proposed an expansive network of free-trade arrangements going well beyond the North | American Free Trade Agreement now pending. For the Beltway bureaucracy bashers, he offered to cut the salaries of higher-paid government officials and to pare the White House operating budget by one-third -- if Congress does the same.

Clinton quickly rebutted, alternately dismissing Bush's proposals as a compilation of old ideas at one campaign stop, then demanding at the next to know why it had taken the President so long to offer them. On the latter point, to be sure, Bush is vulnerable. But by bringing his proposals together, relating them to each other and treating the subject seriously, Bush at last faced the reality that the economy is this year's predominant issue. Bush committed himself to free-market solutions with minimal direction from Washington. Clinton, for all the neo-liberal filigree on his rhetoric, would increase federal intervention and spending in a variety of ways.

With less than 50 days until the election, these distinctions are beginning to solidify. Clinton's plan to provide universal health insurance would involve government-imposed cost control as well as higher taxes. Bush's approach centers on making private insurance more affordable for individuals. Clinton wants an elaborate new national service program as a means of giving young people a way of repaying college loans. Bush promises to scale down the federal bureaucracy.

If a presidential campaign is supposed to offer large options, it is also supposed to provide something of an education to voters. Here Bush's performances are still lacking. Like Clinton, he has yet to offer a detailed and realistic plan to cut the federal deficit. But if last week's bracing change is an indication, voters may yet find their choice for President based on issues that actually matter to them. (See related story on page 22.)