The Best Defense for Dukakis is a Good Offense

TRAILING, or at best dead-even with George Bush in the polls, Mike Dukakis finds himself going into this Sunday night's television debate at the most critical point of his public career.

It is hard to believe that just two months ago Dukakis was a full seventeen points ahead of Bush in the polls; politicos, effectively writing off Bush, were already contemplating who was going to get which position in the Dukakis Administration.

What happened to the Dukakis lead? The answer to that question reveals the problems that have been plaguing the Dukakis campaign over the last month. It is a metamorphosized George Bush, or better yet, the revamped campaign philosophy coming out of the Bush camp. The strategy could have come right out of a Vince Lombardi playbook: offense, offense, offense. Keep your opponent on the defensive even when he thinks he's attacking.

Bush's handlers very effectively moved the campaign onto more comfortable ground. By equating Dukakis with Carter and Mondale they are suddenly running against the type of candidate history shows they can defeat.

Bush has portrayed Dukakis as a paradigmatic "America-bashing" ACLU liberal who isn't proud of his flag, wants to make America weak militarily and wants to raise taxes. Bush has even trumped Dukakis' strongest cards--competent management and the Massachusetts Miracle--by throwing mouthfuls of statistics at the public implying that the Bay State is not half the utopia its Governor and would-be-President would have us believe. Bush supporters point to polls showing the two candidates running neck and neck.

Although many of Bush's attacks have been heavier on show than substance, they have served their political purposes. First of all, they have salvaged Bush's once-written-off candidacy, and put him in front of Dukakis in the polls.

But even more importantly, the Bush strategy is forcing Dukakis to respond and react rather than put forth his own initiatives. In this way, Bush has pushed Dukakis onto political low ground and kept him there by tying him to an allegation too dangerous to be left unanswered: same candidate, new face.

In questioning Dukakis' patriotism, Bush has attacked both Dukakis' immigrant background and liberal philosophy. The first was a key component of Dukakis' populist "American Dream" theme which was originally so appealing to minority, underprivileged, and middle class voters. "Hey, this guy is one of us," they started to say. That is, until Bush began to suggest that Dukakis was not "one of us" precisely because he was too tied to his immigrant roots, as well as too tied to a liberal-academic ideology outside the political mainstream. Result? Dukakis has been much quieter on his immigrant background and ACLU membership.

In fact, much of what Dukakis has been doing lately on the campaign trail has been an attempt to counter the I'm-more-of-a-populist attacks Bush has levelled against him. This includes everything from trying to list all the other states that have prison furlough systems ("I'm not outside the American political mainstream") to riding around in an M-1 tank.

Clearly, Dukakis cannot win a Reagan-Carter or Reagan-Mondale rematch. But this does not need to be the essence of the election. Dukakis can salvage his campaign by launching a "populist counter-attack;" Bush is more vulnerable to this than is at first evident.

DUKAKIS would do well to connect Bush's "chameleon-like" political nature with his ties to the Far Right. The gist of a Dukakis line of attack here would be that Bush is, if not a member, then a marionette of this reactionary fringe group, just as Bush has tried to link Dukakis to the radical left.

How was it that Bush, who was once in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment and pro-choice on abortion, changed his spots overnight when he became Reagan's running mate?

While this tack may consolidate Bush's conservative following, it should help bring the undecided and wavering moderates/independents--who may not be extremely liberal, but who do not identify with the Far Right either--into the Dukakis camp. This strategy, which failed Mondale in '84, is viable now due to the shift in popular opinion concerning the Far Right in light of the televangelist and Iran-Contragate scandals which have tarnished their image.

Moreover, Dukakis can seize the initiative on the defense issue by noting the hypocrisy in Bush's positions. Although Bush is fond of using the Midgetman and MX missles in his speeches, it would be somewhat awkward for him to explain why "his" Administration dumped the Midgetman in Congress as "too expensive," or why it scrapped Carter's plans to deploy the MX in the Southwest without offering an alternative, giving it a quiet death.

In short, Dukakis, must start arraigning Bush. As someone challenging a fairly popular status quo, the burden of proof is on him to show us the "Why?" behind the imperative, "Change." He cannot do this if he is constantly on the defensive. Put George Bush on the stand; seize the "populist initiative." This has to be Dukakis' gameplan through November or else he will lose as surely as Mondale did in '84 and Carter did in '80. Sunday night's debate will be Dukakis' best chance to get back on the offensive.