Giving Up the Ship

WHETHER A BIT TOO effected by their surroundings or touched by the central Florida heat, the Democratic Party chieftains who met at Walt Disney World recently indulged themselves in a fantasy that all the world's fairy dust couldn't make credible.

Armed with a hefty public opinion poll, the Democratic wisemen--chairmen of their state parties--mapped-out a strategy for the '86 elections. They decided Democrats would do best to avoid the words "Ronald Reagan"--an incantation for Republican victory--and urged their party not to target the President's policies.

It's a good thing that the chairmen of the Democratic Party have joined the rest of the country in recognizing Reagan's appeal. It goes without saying that it would be a bad move for the party to launch personal attacks against a man who has come to define the presidency for significant segments of the American electorate.

Unfortunately, the brilliance of the President's popularity has apparently blinded the so-called leaders of the "Party of the People," just as it blinded the people themselves, to the more tangible failures of the current administration.

On his way to becoming one of the most beloved presidents in recent memory, Ronald Reagan has doubled the national debt, savaged vital social welfare programs, overseen the most massive peace-time arms build up in this nation's history, and made the U.S. a net borrower nation for the first time this century.

The chairmen were wise to realize their party must not challenge President Reagan to a personality contest in '86. Glossing over the President's accomplishments, however, is not an option for the Democrats. If they ignore the last six years, the Democrats will prove that they have wavered in their commitment to their party's principles, and will turn any success they might have into little more than victories of one set of empty symbols over another.

BUT THE CHAIRMEN haven't provided the only recent example that their party has begun to drift from the tenets it has long held.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy '54 has been unwaveringly committed to his vision of social justice for almost 25 years. But recently, as speculation about his presidential aspirations has heated up for the umpteenth time, the man who urges his party to "sail against the wind" has apparently furled his sail.

Some call the Senator's energetic support of the Gramm-Rudman budget-balancing bill and the line-item veto indications of Kennedy's political savvy and willingness to compromise. And maybe they're right. After all, the Senator did spend the summer months arguing against a conservative-backed pharmaceutical control bill which he said did little to prevent dangerous drugs from being "dumped" into Third World countries.

But when the bill--which has been labelled "obnoxious" by progressive consumer groups--was marked up earlier this month, there was proof that the old sailor had been caught up in the conservative tide. Kennedy's name was prominent among the bill's sponsors.

At a time when they could have found in Reagan's policies a clear causus belli to counter the malaise and lack of direction which have invaded their party, the chairmen have counseled ignorance and avoidance. No one can say for certain what kind of campaign the chairmen want in '86, but past elections give some indication of how clashless campaigns can sometimes secure an easy victory.

For a few brief weeks in 1984, Gary Hart, running an outsider campaign, was the sworn enemy of the so-called Democratic establishment. Most state chairmen attacked Hart for scorning traditional Democratic values to run a campaign of "new ideas."

Now after seeing the candidate who carried their standard trounced by a well-packaged Reagan, the chairmen have come around to Hart's point-of-view. They apparently see his tactic--simply evoking a nostalgic sense of the past--as the weapon of choice in the political battles of the future, rather than an outright fight against Reaganite principles.

Its arguably true that the best of Hart's new ideas was to employ a capable hairdresser, and the worst of them was to avoid saying anything of substance. It's possible to see Hart as proof that the Democrats could run the kind of soulless campaign Reagan has mastered and which the state chairmen apparently want.

But the Democratic Party should not base its future on candidates comfortable with the political idiom Reagan uses so well.

IF THE CHAIRMEN SENSED that the Democrats of '86 and '88 and '92 would have to see the "Reagan Phenomenon" as a lesson in the need for neat packaging a keen sense of the symbolic they were probably right. We should be concerned that the Democratic National Committee sees its search for a symbol to replace the familiar donkey as good preparation for the upcomming campaign.

Having acted on the urge to engage symbols, the Democrats are in danger of forgetting their commitment to social justice, increased independence and broadened opportunity. It would be a great shame if any Democratic victories were attributable only to a clever marketing campaign rather than the victories of ideas to which the party long has been committed.