Is the President a plagiarist? Campaign kleptomania.

A rhetoric quiz: Correctly attribute each of the following quotes to a national political figure. (Hint: George Bush is part of every answer.)

1. A. "We'll . . . make the label 'Made in America' the symbol of quality and durability all over the world." [September 1988]

B. "A better America where 'Made in the U.S.A.' is recognized around the world as a symbol of quality and progress." [January 1990]

B. "A better America, where there's a job for everyone who wants one." [January 1990]

3. A. "I call upon the leaders in Washington to launch a comprehensive growth initiative." [October 1991]

B. "We're setting up a very important comprehensive growth initiative and getting it up to Congress." [December 1991]

Answer key: The A quotes were by: 1. Michael Dukakis 2. Dukakis 3. Mario Cuomo. The B quotes were by George Bush.

George Bush a plagiarist? Not exactly. Rather, Bush's habit of ripping off lines used by his Democratic opponents (or at least appearing to do so) points us toward something slightly more insidious: His "new" domestic agenda--from his plan to tamper with IRAs all the way to his notion of a "comprehensive growth agenda"--is, more than anything else, a hodgepodge of ideas pushed by top-tier Democrats like Al Gore, Mario Cuomo, and Bill Clinton.

Sure, Bush has been knocked ad nauseam for a lack of vision, but an item by item examination of his recent plan suggests Bush isn't blind--or dumb. A large chunk of his "new" agenda was shaped simply by scouting his political competitors and then absorbing in some form what they had to say--a co-option that makes a lot of political (if not ideological) sense. If you want to predict what the president will say next week, just listen to the guy who's moving up in the polls this week.

Plank robber

Preposterous? Let's take a closer look at the genesis of the new agenda, as articulated in January's State of the Union address. The aegis of Bush's hastily assembled strategy is a holistic growth plan that includes disparate reforms in areas from investment tax credits to education. Bush had long been loath to consider any such plan. As far back as the 1988 campaign, he unflinchingly trumpeted a "silver bullet" agenda instead: a cut in the capital gains tax combined with a few minor reforms such as incentives for savings and encouragement of enterprise zones. As late as November 17, 1991, Dan Quayle, appearing on ABC News' "This Week With David Brinkley," said: "There is a silver bullet out there that could help this economy and it's . . . the capital gains tax cut." And that was the entire plan.

But over on the Democratic side, a comprehensive (or holistic) growth agenda had become thenformidable-looking challenger Mario Cuomo's most resonant theme. He first proposed the idea in December 1990, but starting with an October 25, 1991 press release, and followed by a series of public statements and a November 24 speech (about the time the Cuomo-for-president clamor was at its shrillest), Cuomo put his agenda for a net investment tax credit combined with reforms in areas such as education and taxes at the center of his economic message. This was no silver bullet. It was, as Cuomo labeled it, a "comprehensive growth agenda."

Perhaps it was coincidence, but 10 days later, Bush and his top deputies suddently, eerily, unveiled a new approach to our domestic ills--a"comprehensive growth agenda." Between December 4 and 6, Bush, Richard Darman, Nicholas Brady, and Michael Boskin used the phrase in public appearances no less than 14 times. Even though they had yet to develop the details of the plan, they were ingnorant of the new Democratic push in this area? Let's ask Darman.

In congressional testimony on December 5 (just 18 days after Quayle told Brinkley that all we need is the "silver bullet" capital gains tax cut), Darman said: "There is much talk about the need for . . . the proverbial 'silver bullet.' . . . [But] what is needed is a comprehensive approach to growth. This is perhaps what one much-mentioned Democrat may have meant by 'holistic.'"

Shtick shift

By the end of December, however, Cuomo had removed himself from the race and the comprehensive growth shtick no longer seemed so pressing. More importantly, Bill Clinton was steadily ascending in the polls. Clinton's signal theme, from his announcement speech to his town hall meet-and-greets, was a call for "responsibility" on the part of both government and citizenry. He wasn't subtle about it either. "[I] ask every American to assume personal responsibility for the future," Clinton intoned in his October 3 announcement speech. "It is our generation's responsibility to form a New Covenant--more responsibility from everyone. " Ever since, Clinton has been heard on the campaign trail speaking the message of welfare reform, insisting that "those on welfare move into the workplace."

Bush has pushed many themes during his tenure as president, but never has the notion of responsibility been elevated to, say, the level of a State of the Union address--that is, until this year. Near the conclusion of his speech, Bush called on the American peole, and especially those receiving government assistance, to show a greater sense of--you guessed it. He said, "Able-bodied people have . . . a responsibility to the taxpayer . . . a responsibility to hold families together . . . a responsibility to obey the law." Just to be certain that the theme wouldn't get lost in the mix, he repeated the word five times in a single paragraph.

Coincidence? A quick look at the rest Bush's new agenda shows the same suspicious pattern:

* An increased investment tax allowance plan that would reduce the tax burden on companies that invest in new machinery and equipment. For three years, Bush ignored the idea while Cuomo (most notably) and other Democratic leaders (George Mitchell and most recently Paul Tsongas) lobbied to bring it back. Only when Cuomo's name began once again to creep up in the polls did Bush finally awaken to its merits.

* A plan that would require all businesses to hal\t production of ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by December 31, 1995. Bush seemingly never gave this idea--long a favorite of dark-horse presidential threat Al Gore--a thought until just over a month ago, when he proposed it with great fanfare.

* A plan to make all Americans eligible for the fully deductible $2,000 IRA. This one's been a pet project of oft-mentioned presidental contender Lloyd Bentsen. But again, Bush never gave it so much as a nod until people started talking about drafting Bentsen.

* Unemployment relief legislation. This needs little explanation in an election year.

And there are other borrowed issues, like plans to fully fund Head Start and make student loans more affordable (the ancient domain of the Democrats); the sudden emergence of an increased child-care exemption as a major presidential issue (even though Bush's plan unfairly favors the wealthy at the expense of the poor), but only after Democratic leaders made issue; and a plan to allow penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs for first-time homebuyers that was originally proposed four years ago, and called Home Start, by candidate Dukakis. As for the remainder of the President's domestic cures, most are either retreads of ideas he has pushed for years like America 2000, the HOPE homeownership plan, and his crime bill, or temporary adjustments, such as the 90-day moratorium on new regulations.

The revision thing

Stealing from the enemy is nothing new for Bush. Four years ago, candidate Bush declared a "war of ideology" at the Republican National Convention. "The stakes are high this year," he said, "for the differences between candidates are as wide as they have ever been in our long history." But let's look at the record. Since becoming president, Bush has adopted, almost verbatim, several planks from the 1988 Democratic platform--and not just any planks, but those that he roundly mocked as a candidate.

For instance, Bush won points in 1988 for ridiculing Dukakis' plan--ill-conceived as it may have been--to hire more tax auditors to reap billions in uncollected revenue. "This idea of unleashing a . . . conventional army of IRS agency into everyone's kitchen . . . I'm against that," he said. At least he was until 1991, when he quietly unveiled a similar $200 million program to hire more than 1,000 additional auditors. On gun control, Bush in 1988 effectively portrayed the Democrats' plan, which featured restraints on the import of semiautomatic weapons, as a program to ban all firearms. His position on a semiautomatic weapons ban: "I'm not about to do that. ... That's my position, and "im not going to change it." That is until, as president, he supported a ban on the import of five types of semiautomatic assault weapons and 24 other types of guns.

On the environment, the Democrats proposed elevating the EPA to cabinet level, and again Bush opposed it only until he became president. Other stones in his ideological wall, from his support for offshore oil drilling to his fierce opposition to racial quotas, have tumbled just as easily.

To be sure, Bush in 1992 is far from a closet Democrat: We need only remember his paltry attempt at health insurance reform and his undying allegiance to the capital gains tax cut. And besides, good politicians should have enough modesty to embrace good ideas, no matter what their party pedigree.

But in Bush's case, one can't help thinking that his policy is driven less by a sense of nonpartisan commitment to the national interest than by a desperate urge to hamstring his competition. And the dismal news is that the strategy works. Even if Bush doesn't mean what he utters, his political prevent defense--a themeless mix of proposals--succeeds in taking many of the defining issues, such as extended unemployment benefits, out of the realm of partisan politics, and in the process defuses the challenge from the left. And more recently, as the threat from the right (a.k.a. Pat Buchanan) has come unleashed, he's suddenly taken its themes to heart: Witness his tax apology, his new look at housing policy (a reaction to the latent threat from Jack Kemp), and the ouster of National Endowment for the Arts Chairman John Frohnmayer.

Planned larceny 

Still, the most discouraging thing about Bush's campaign kleptomania is that no one on the other side seems to notice that the family treasures are gone. Democrats, Republicans, and pundits alike are still tripping over each other to declare that Bush has drawn deep battle lines between himself and the left. "A Declaration of Political War on the Democrats," trumpeted a January 29 Washington Post front-page headline over an analysis of Bush's policy agenda. "It was a speech that reiterated the errors of the past," said candidate Clinto just minutes after Bush unveiled his plan in the State of Union.

Ironically, the only one calling the president on his policy pilfering is Buchanan, who says he's challenging Bush because the president "has abandoned the principles of his party." But Bush has abandoned more than that; he's jettisoned any sort of disciplined approach to a domestic policy. Petty thievery of minor ideas does not a vision make, and that is one issue the Democrats would do well to take advantage of, for two reasons. One, because it's true. And two, because it's one plank George Bush won't want to steal.