By Thomas Oliphant, 8/26/2003

WASHINGTON

THE LAST TIME I checked, the people who work for a living or who are retired on modest incomes -- the ones who comprise the foundation of the Democratic Party -- are not responsible for the stagnant economy or the absence of new jobs, much less for the government's explosion of debt and deficit. So why is it that two of the more prominent Democratic presidential candidates -- Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt -- would target their paychecks and pensions in seeking to lead the country out of the unprecedented mess President Bush has created? And why is it that three others -- John Edwards, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman -- would not, focusing instead just on Americans with sky-high incomes?

It is not chic right now to suggest that there are a couple of serious issues in the contest that appears winnable, particularly because of Bush's inability to level with the country about either Iraq or the economy's anemic recovery.

For the moment, in the period before the campaign heats up and Democrats in the early voting states get ready to winnow the field, it is chic instead to wonder at the so-called Dean Phenomenon or marvel at the difficulty all of the other candidates appear to be having in establishing themselves. It is also chic to comment on the alleged desire of Democratic voters to cheer a candidate who will "take on" Bush, an elevation of attitude over substance.

For those of us who are rarely chic, this is more than unusual -- it is dangerous. A disagreement as fundamental as how to close the worst budget gap ever, a gap certain to keep the economy's long-run growth prospects minimal at best and greatly complicate the financing of the baby boom generation's retirement, is worth discussing more vigorously.