EDITORIAL\Buchanan's economics\His concern about the American worker is warranted - but not his\solutions.

PATRICK BUCHANAN is a dark, divisive and wildly opportunistic candidate, but his success in New Hampshire cannot be minimized.

Buchanan has brought to these primaries an understanding of what really troubles the American middleclass: job insecurity. He colors it in various guises - be it tirades about the NAFTA and GATT trade accords or charges of corporate greed - but it still comes down to a deep-seated fear of being laidoff. And then, not being able to find work.

The laments are familiar by now, but no less telling: Over the past 20 years, the real incomes of working-class Americans have fallen. Corporations are sharply paring down their operations - often, in the name of positive short-term earnings. Manufacturing jobs are being lost to cheaper overseas labor.

These are legitimate, grass-roots concerns, and they are not eased by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan's scholarly assurances. Perhaps that's one of the reasons Bob Dole slipped up. By telling New Hampshire voters this week that he "didn't realize that jobs and trade and what makes America work would be a big issue," Dole revealed his own policy-making myopia.

In contrast, Buchanan picks up on the worker frustration - only to offer a cartoon-like vision of what caused it and what can be done about it. His populist/nationalist agenda would not only wreak havoc on the world economy, but it would create more problems for the same middle-income constituency he wants to attract.

And make no mistake, we do live in a world economy. Exports represent a significant portion of overall economic growth, especially in Southern California, and the gains and losses are not always as obvious as Buchanan would have us believe.

Example: While the nation's clothing manufacturers are shutting down U.S. factories and taking their jobs overseas, what's often not mentioned is that the cloth being used for much of that overseas work originated in the United States. In fact, it's argued that NAFTA has been influential in keeping the textile business in this country.

Where Buchanan really fails is in neglecting one of the biggest factors for job insecurity: changing technology. The United States is undergoing a massive economic transition in which information and service jobs are taking the place of manufacturing ones.

As was true a century ago with the transition from an agricultural to an industrial era, such profound change transcends all of government - much less an individual president.

Does that mean we shrug our shoulders at the plight of the American worker? Of course not. The pain being felt is real, and government can offer at least some relief - whether it's requiring that health insurance be made fully portable from job to job, or offering tax incentives to corporations that retrain workers.

Still, the current economic period is destined to be a rocky one - no matter who wins the presidency - and the unworkable populism of Patrick Buchanan must not mask that reality.