Bush on the tightrope.

BUSH ON THE TIGHTROPE

THE QUESTION tormenting George Bush's campaign strategists is whether their candidate can walk the tightrope Reagan walked in 1980 and 1984 and attract New Deal defectors along with traditional Republicans and conservative independents.

To understand the challenge, it is instructive to recall the realignments of the elections of 1932 and 1936, during that era of the New Deal when majorities of blue-collar voters, Catholics, and white Southerners united to help form a new Democratic majority. Since then, these voters have rarely defected from the Democratic coalition-in fact, only three times: once for Nixon and twice for Reagan.

Remember that it was these three groups that sparked talk in the early 1980s of realignment toward the GOP, some of which seemed to take place in 1980 and 1984. But when the 1982 and 1986 midterm-election votes were tallied, these voters had gone home to Democratic candidates. That migration has come to be known as "dealignment"-a phenomenon in which the support of floating blocks of voters without strong loyalties to either party has become essential to winning the Presidency.

Bush's strategists are planning a series of moves aimed at gaining the allegiance of these constituencies. A new set of policy proposals to combat drug abuse will be announced shortly by the Vice President, including a proposal for stiff mandatory sentencing for drug pushers who recruit juveniles to the drug trade. Such tough measures appeal to blue-collar voters, Bush campaigners say.

For Catholics, Bush has settled on a tepid opposition to abortion about halfway between the beliefs and practices of the majority of contemporary Catholics and the uncompromising position of those like Phyllis Schafly. Bush may do more for Catholics later, perhaps renewing Reagan's unfulfilled pledge to offer tuition tax credits to parents who send their children to parochial schools.

Along with drugs and abortion, two other issues have become important to these voter groups: plant-closing notification and child care. President Reagan has opposed an amendment to the trade bill requiring employers to give sixty days' notice of impending layoffs and plant closings, a gut issue for blue-collar voters (who want it) and for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which doesn't). Senate and House Democrats are stripping the trade bill of all veto-bait except the plant-closing measure. That way, when Reagan vetoes the bill, Democrats-notably Michael Dukakis-will be able to point to the Administration's "lack of compassion" for blue-collar workers. Bush, the loyal wingman, will be compelled to support the President's position at his own political expense.

The voters affected most by the childcare issue are blue-collar families in which wives have entered the labor force hoping to bring in enough extra money to help buy a home and send the kids to college. Polls show how much these voters worry about child care. The issue is especially sensitive because conservatives, who don't want to make staying home and taking care of kids any less attractive an option for women than it already is, want a straight tax credit or an expanded deduction for all families with children. On the other hand, Treasury Secretary James Baker (who will probably step down this August to manage Bush's campaign) is opposed to new losses of revenue from any such credits.

Thus, a battle is brewing within the Administration over the shape of any potential child-care proposal. This issue could help alienate the Reagan coalition from New Deal defectors.

To further complicate Bush's life, Dukakis has beaten him to the punch on all three issues. The Massachusetts governor support early notification of plant closings (even though Massachusetts has passed only a voluntary notification provision) and plans to visit factories to push the issue in every state on his campaign itinerary. Dukakis is has also been showing up at child-care centers. Finally, he hopes to embarrass the Vice president on the drug issue by underscoring Bush's alleged knowledge of General Noriega's drug trafficking, and the ineffectiveness of the Vice President's Drug Task Force.

Bush will attempt to counter Dukakis's hardlining with a call for the U.S. military to stop the flow of narcotics across our borders, a measure adamantly opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But the Democrats also favor an expanded role for the Pentagon in the war on drugs. Which means that on this issue, as on others, unless Bush can show voters how his position differs from Dukakis's, he runs the risk of being a "me too" candidate.

This election, likely to be a close one, may well turn on how well the campaigns are managed. Each step Bush takes along the tightrope will be critical. He will have to reach out to enough groups to win a majority on election night-without, however, looking like a trollop. Washington pundits will be watching to see where the New Deal defectors go.