Democrats scoff at comparing George Bush to Winston Churchill, but they seem to think their 1992 presidential candidate can play Clement Attlee, the British Labor Party leader in 1945. At the close of World War II, Attlee unseated Churchill as prime minister with a “come home” platform like the one Democrats hope to offer now. Despite the euphoria over the gulf war and the collapse of Soviet communism, it’s wishful thinking just plausible enough to sustain Democrats, says Republican analyst Kevin Phillips. “The cold war is over. The mood is: come back, take care of this country.”
In the Democratic scenario, a generational shift is at work. Bush, who began his public service as a World War II naval aviator, will confront voters who came of age worrying more about wages than totalitarianism. Americans admire his prudent handling of foreign affairs-but overwhelmingly think the country is on the wrong track. Old labels have lost their punch. To use a favorite Bush term, America needs a new “mission. " The first party to define it can control the future-and the White House.
The world has yet to be given the details of the Democrats’ come-home crusade. But the outlines are clear. It’s one part economic nationalism-“The cold war is over and Japan won,” says candidate Paul Tsongas. The other part is the belief that government should be the guarantor of decency and opportunity in American society. “I think the Democrats this time are closer to having a message than a messenger,” says Democratic consultant Robert Squier. “And this is the message we actually win elections with: government caring about people’s lives.”
There’s brave talk of changing spending patterns. At a time of never-ending tax revolts, Democrats must look to cutting defense outlays to free money for other uses. Last week Tsongas proposed shifting $2 billion from the Pentagon to emergency humanitarian aid for what used to be the U.S.S.R. Sen. Tom Harkin, soon to declare his own candidacy, denounces the $160 billion the United States spends annually to defend Europe. He and others have ambitious plans to “reorder priorities” and funnel defense money to domestic programs (page 43). Yet the Democrats are deluding themselves if they think the death of the Soviet Union automatically means a burst of new spending at home-or a renewal of trust in their ability to manage it. Americans share Bush’s caution. While most believe communism is dying, a new Washington Post Poll last week showed that voters don’t agree it’s safe to scrap the Arsenal of Democracy. “Americans still think we have a moral-and military-role to play in the world,” says polling analyst John Marttila. Britons felt the same way 40 years ago; at Allied urging, Attlee championed rearmament as the cold war began.
More important, Americans are almost as soured on “The State” as Russians are. World War II convinced the British that government planning could work. But Americans have been educated by Vietnam, Watergate, congressional scandals and Republican anti-Washington leadership. Voters are deeply skeptical about the wisdom and ethics of the central government. They want guaranteed health care but fear the taxes and bureaucracy required to implement it. They want better public education, but most don’t think more spending is the way to get it. Democrats, mired in their reputation as lovers of big government and its clients, will have difficulty selling themselves as economic managers. “They still aren’t a credible opposition,” says Phillips. “The Laborites in Britain in 1945 were, by the way.”
In fact, events in Russia could give a Churchillian boost to Republican free marketers. “The second Russian revolution was about an end to leveling,” says supply-side theorist Jude Wanniski. “The Russians want the freedom to take big risks as individuals.” Democrats should take note: former California governor Jerry Brown, who knows a political Zeitgeist when he sees one, recently sought Wanniski’s counsel for his own presidential bid.
Still, the daydreaming Democrats may be on to something, however unlikely they are to realize their fantasy next year. Americans could come to see their own stagnant economy as the next great threat to what Ronald Reagan called “the last best hope of mankind.” There’s room for a “mission” that emphasizes excellence at home-and competitiveness abroad. That would certainly seem to be crusade enough until the millennium. Because the most crucial similarity between Great Britain after World War II and the United States today is this: they were broke, and so are we.
