BUSH: THINGS ARE NOT GREAT, BUT NOT TERRIBLE

The momentum of current American politics seems to ebb and flow in tidal waves. Poll numbers don't creep, they gyrate.

* In 1991, President Bush was the heroic Commander-in-Chief, conqueror of the contemporary Hitler, Saddam Hussein. His presidency achieved record high approval ratings. Today, if the Persian Gulf victory is remembered at all, it's by the question: Why didn't Bush go all the way and knock out the no-good S.O.B.?

* In 1991, 70 percent of the people thought that the "nation was headed in the right direction." Today only 20 percent think so.

* A few months ago Bill Clinton was an accident-prone candidate barely hanging on in Connecticut and New York for dear life against the attacks of an unguided political missile, Jerry Brown. Today, he's Mr. Smooth, buscapading from New York to St. Louis, in command of the campaign and basking in the glow of an almost surreal 27 point lead in the nationwide Time-CNN poll (34 points in California Field poll).

* Clinton moved promptly to inherit the Perot "legacy" as the agent of change and he is succeeding by a 4-to-1 ratio in California. Bush, awaiting his manager and his message, is stuck with 7.8 percent unemployment (9.5 percent or better in five of the biggest electoral states) and dwindling economic growth. Loyalists used to yell, "Let Reagan be Reagan." No one yells, "Let Bush be Bush." As of now, no one knows what that might produce.

* Clinton is heralded for choosing someone as smart as himself for Vice President. Bush struggles with Dan Quayle, whom half the American people want dumped.

* Clinton and Gore trumpet the "family values" horn just as loud as the GOP. No one has cornered the market on singing sweet political music. Michael Dukakis learned this in 1988 when he woke up and found that George Bush had somehow smooth-talked himself into being both the education and environmental candidate. In American politics, if you say it well enough, long enough and loud enough, you are what you claim to be unless adequately challenged.

Is it an electoral rout in the making? Not necessarily. If President Bush "lurches" (as his friend Bill Bennett put it on TV last Sunday) through the rest of the campaign, it will be. A Democratic landslide presupposes that the Bush of the next three months is a carbon copy of the past three. It presumes that deus ex machina Jim Baker has no more miracles to work. It assumes that Bill Clinton, still distrusted by many Americans, has permanently eradicated that negative public attitude and will remain in control of the campaign agenda.

Bush has but one basic message to sell: change is fine if you can be sure of what you're getting. There's no way to re-invent George Bush as a bold innovator ready to craft an exciting future. The best that can be conjured up is that he will not dangerously rock the boat as might this young man Clinton about whom there is still public uncertainty.

Incumbent President George Bush is now a less powerful political personality than he was four years ago as candidate George Bush. Today he confronts widespread public disaffection rather than the modest degree of public anticipation that he faced four years ago.

His "vision thing" this election will not be a portrait of what he foresees as we head into the 21st century. Instead Bush will try to frame the issues in terms of the worries and uncertainties that he can link to a Clinton-led nation. He will claim that things may not be great, but they could be a lot worse. That may not be a motto for a Sam Walton pep rally, but in practical terms it's about the best he's got.