Back To Reality

By Richard Lacayo

No role was ever so becoming to George Bush as the one he played during the war against Iraq: resolute and successful Commander in Chief of America's armed forces. It was an opportunity that came just in time. After a long honeymoon with the American people, the President's baffling flip-flops on taxes and a gathering recession caused his approval rating to fall to a so-so 53% by last autumn. The buildup to war followed by the breathtaking weeks of combat made Americans forget all that. Soon after Kuwait was liberated in February, Bush's popularity rocketed to an unprecedented 86%. Democrats could only gape in awe at his upward trajectory.

But now the euphoria is wearing thin. As the troops head back to the U.S., misgivings about the nation and its future have also come marching home. A TIME/CNN survey conducted last week by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman indicates trends that are not totally unexpected but are nonetheless significant: Bush's popularity is eroding and the public is increasingly concerned about the economy. Democrats may want to think twice before conceding the 1992 election in advance.

The TIME/CNN poll shows Bush still enjoying an extraordinary approval rate of 76% -- even Ronald Reagan stood at just 38% at a comparable point in his first term. But that represents a 10-point drop from March 7, one week after American and allied troops rolled into Kuwait City. White House officials took the dip in stride, claiming that they never put too much stock in the President's incredible postwar approval ratings and had always expected them to settle down to more realistic levels. "When he was at 70% it was great," said an official last week. "But 90% was just plain silly."

Even so, growing concerns about domestic problems were starting to deflate Bush's gulf war bubble. Fears about the economy in particular were appearing increasingly nettlesome for the White House. Nearly half those questioned on March 7 said they thought the economy was in "fairly good" shape. By last week that number was down to 36%. At the same time, those who thought it was in "poor" condition had risen from 38% to 46%.

Though there are a few glimmers of hope for economic recovery -- housing starts in February were up 16.4% over the previous month -- the present pain is nearer at hand. Unemployment went to 6.8% last month, up from 5.2% in June. All around the country, cities and states are contemplating new taxes and making painful cuts into budget funds for schools, police and other government services. Every time a bank totters or an S&L tumbles or an insurance company collapses into bankruptcy, a shudder goes through the nation. The old concerns about Bush's feckless approach to domestic issues are beginning to reappear. "The serious problems haven't been addressed," says Houston lawyer Patrick Dugan, a Bush supporter who usually votes Republican. "The deficit, S&Ls, plummeting real estate. People were scared during the war. All the Saddam rhetoric, they focused on that. Now all of a sudden, the problems are back and they're big, big, big."

Still the picture is not entirely gloomy. The gulf war offered evidence of skillful American leadership and successful U.S. technology. To some, Bush's success in the gulf raised confidence in his potential on the domestic front. "He seemed like a different person during the war," says Watertown, Mass., elementary school principal John Degnan. "He took tough positions and held to them." Concludes George Browning, an accountant in the La Canada- Flintridge suburb of Los Angeles: "He's no longer the wuss he once was. ^ The war did close the books on that."

White House aides point out that even as Bush focused on the gulf war, he did not neglect his domestic responsibilities. Since January, they note, he has laid the groundwork for a new banking plan, a new energy plan and a reduction in the number of military bases around the country, and has begun a big push for a free-trade zone for North America. This week he is scheduled to unveil a much anticipated national education strategy. Even before his popularity began to sag, Bush knew that he would have to attempt at least some domestic leadership in order to keep Democratic challengers at bay in 1992.

In the international arena, however, Bush must be careful not to squander the political capital gained in the gulf war. Images of the President bonefishing in Florida while he formulated his slow and equivocal reaction to Saddam Hussein's crackdown on the Kurds have already raised some doubts. Bush also declared that progress on the Arab-Israeli question would be a priority immediately after the war ended. But during his trip to the region last week, Secretary of State James Baker made the kind of microscopic progress that is typical of movement through that quagmire.

"What's back in the picture is the wimp factor," observes Robert Dallek, a professor of American political history at the University of California, Los Angeles. "We had a hand in creating these problems. Now President Bush is pulling back. It raises questions once again in people's minds as to what kind of strength he has as a leader." In part perhaps to thwart such criticisms, Bush last week ordered the U.S. military to take charge of relief efforts for Kurdish refugees in northern Iraq.

Democrats were quick to make the most of the poll results. "The public focus has changed from the situation in the gulf to our challenges back home," declared Democratic national chairman Ron Brown. "The 1992 presidential campaign will be decided on kitchen-table issues because Americans are concerned about their economic well-being." For weeks Tennessee Senator Albert Gore, a likely Democratic contender, has been telling anyone who would listen that Bush would turn out to be vulnerable in '92. "The decline in the President's poll numbers was inevitable," he says. "Real take-home pay after taxes is lower today than it was in 1959, the year before John Kennedy called for America to get moving again."

Democrats, however, are poorly positioned to exploit the tiny cracks in $ Bush's armor. To do that, the party needs attention-getting spokesmen who can make a persuasive case against the Administration. But no leading Democrat has yet dared accept the challenge of running against Bush. The party has fielded just two contenders, who so far seem weightless: Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder and former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas. When asked about their attitudes toward some Democratic candidates, 74% of those who took part in the TIME/CNN poll said they did not know enough about Tsongas to offer a judgment. For Wilder the number was only slightly better, 69%.

"The Democrats could drive these numbers more if they had a few aggressive candidates, as they did in 1988, hammering us on the economy," says Linda DiVall, a Republican pollster. "In the absence of that, our side sets the agenda."

The dearth of serious opposition, should it persist, could be Bush's greatest asset as he seeks to win a second term. The problem the Democrats face is neatly expressed by Barbara Kantorowicz of Shoreview, Minn., a single mother who ended nine years on welfare last year when she started work for a local social-service organization, the Family Violence Network. Meanwhile, her own day-to-day financial struggle goes on. "I'm struggling just as much as when I was on welfare," she sighs. Would she vote again for George Bush, as she did in 1988? Maybe. "There's no better person in sight," she shrugs. "Democrat or Republican." Now that Bush has begun to appear vulnerable, perhaps one or two more formidable challengers will decide to take him on.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 1,000 American adults taken for TIME/CNN on April 10-11 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling error is plus or minus 3%.

CAPTION: How well do you think things are going in the country these days?

Do you approve of the way President Bush is handling his job as President?

How would you describe economic conditons in the country today?

With reporting by Laurence I. Barrett/Washington, Marc Hequet/St. Paul and James Willwerth/Los Angeles