LOSING WITH CLASS: DEMOCRATS ON TITANIC

Stating the obvious, the Democrats are dead for the presidency in 1992. The takeoffs and landings of fugleman John Sununu are not enough to sink the good ship Bush. An economy on an upward creep or even a nervous plateau is good enough for the president to defeat a party in intellectual starvation. But there could be something positive about losing with class.

Back in 1952 and again in 1956, when the Republicans had a folk hero, Dwight Eisenhower, to run for president, the Democrats decided to counter with quality. Eisenhower would mouth the platitudes; Adlai Stevenson would articulate the substance. Democrats stood with pride at the rail of the Titanic.

It's time to revert to that strategy of proud failure. First off, lock up all the pollsters. They abhor substance. It makes them nervous. They can't seem to quantify it in their numbers.

Next, interview only those media advisers who believe they can focus their talents on legitimate public policy issues. This will have the advantage of narrowing down the list to one or two.

Then, draw up a list of six or so of the most important issues of our time - maybe the dying cities, education and children, health, housing, environment and "the new world order."

Tell the people right off that there are many other important problems, but in order to let the public know where you stand you are going to have to focus on the magic six (or whatever).

Announce that you will have no gimmicks, just straightforward talk. Tell the folks that you will not run for office based on how a pollster might decide to sell Taster's Choice coffee.

Start the campaign in New York immediately after the convention. As one writer puts it, New York is known as our arts and financial capital, but is better recognized as our capital of grunginess, AIDS, homelessness and crack. The coca plant has been proposed as the official city flower.

The Democratic candidate will state what it may cost (over what period of time) to enhance conditions in New York City. He will, as nobly as possible, confess that most societal enhancements will be for naught so long as there is gross instability in the family life of many of those in abject poverty.

There will, in fact, be a permanent American underclass as a permanent national legacy. Not all of political substance is addressed to eternal hope - some has to be saved for sobering despair.

Oh, yes, the candidate. Mario Cuomo is a neo-Stevensonian, but is probably sunk by the fiscal crunch of his state and his replication of Stevenson's consummate irresolution.

For the moment, subject to jumping ship with the slightest breeze, I tender General Colin Powell. He's a Democrat. Make no mistake about it. His advice to Bush on when to start the war in the Gulf was Democratic advice. He's a 14-karat hero, bright, and articulate. On the domestic scene, he's not burdened with a litany of threadbare solutions.

Back in 1952, Stevenson was an unknown quantity on national issues. That was part of his charm. He was his own man. He could say what he thought. His public views were his own.

Powell would be in the same position. He is not burdened by the political minutiae of yesteryear. His vision can be of the future, not just rehashing the political "miracles" of the past. The Democrats and the country could be the better for it.