Fitfully interested in foreign policy, voters see some strides from Bush

WASHINGTON - George W. Bush is trying to counter the foreign policy advantage of a rival plainly ahead of him in international experience.

Surrounding himself with GOP foreign policy luminaries, proposing to cut the nuclear arsenal, meeting foreign leaders, the Texas governor is out to show it's not necessary to have been there and done that to guide America's place in the world.

In the week leading up to Memorial Day, a time when the thoughts of many Americans are turning to the beach or barbecue, Bush devoted himself to foreign policy activities meant to draw contrasts with Democrat Al Gore and to flesh out a platform the vice president slams as ''noticeably blank'' or ''risky.''

Gore takes his turn Saturday when he speaks to the West Point military academy on defense readiness, a non-campaign event tied to his duties as vice president but useful to his aspirations to become commander in chief.

On Memorial Day itself, Bush will visit Fort Hood in Texas. Gore, at a Pennsylvania appearance, will be able to talk about his own Vietnam service.

Gore has seven years of vice presidential diplomacy behind him and a first-name familiarity with some of the leaders whose names or titles Bush has struggled to bring to mind.

However, Bush has made a bit of progress from the days when he was seen as a neophyte on international affairs, analysts say. And some believe a bit may be enough, because voters don't care much about foreign policy credentials in the absence of crisis.

A basic level of comfort suffices, says presidential historian John Mueller of the University of Rochester. ''He has to get up to the minimum and he's probably OK.''

Maxine Isaacs, who teaches public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and was press secretary for Walter Mondale's 1984 Democratic presidential campaign, said foreign policy counts for little on its face but can play an outsized role in helping voters judge leadership.

''Being 'blank' on foreign policy is probably fairly easy to fix because there's enough time and he has a first-rate team,'' she said of Bush.

Bush and Gore both met this week with South African President Thabo Mbeki during his U.S. visit, and both addressed a pro-Israel lobbying group.

Later, with retired Gen. Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger and other foreign policy notables at his side, Bush proposed a unilateral - although unspecified - cut in U.S. nuclear arms. Previously accused by Gore of being locked in Cold War thinking, Bush turned the same charge on the vice president.

The Bush camp had considered scheduling foreign trips for the candidate before the election, but those plans have been set aside.

Recent history is replete with examples of foreign policy successes that went unrewarded by voters, failures that went unpunished and expertise that seemed to meet only indifference, especially since the question of who could best stand against communism lost its urgency.

''A lot of American presidents have come to office with very limited experience,'' said Allan J. Lichtman, history department chairman at American University. ''There's little evidence that candidates have lost elections because they seemed too callow about foreign policy.''

Isaacs recalled the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon - causing the heaviest loss of life for the U.S. military since the Vietnam War - and how the invasion of Grenada shortly after ''changed the subject'' to the benefit of President Reagan, who easily won re-election in 1984.

Coming off Cold War and Gulf War victories, President Bush was fond of saying his dog knew more about foreign policy than Bill Clinton ever did. Clinton was branded the ''failed governor of a small state.'' All to no avail.

''People were resentful of what they perceived to be President Bush's relentless focus on foreign policy and his willful neglect of economic issues,'' said Paul Begala, an architect of Clinton's 1992 victory and now a pundit favoring Gore. ''It was most important to us to display Clinton's mastery of economic policy.''

Even so, Clinton delivered a lengthy foreign policy lecture early in the campaign, enlisted heavyweights on international affairs and displayed an eagerness to learn.

Begala contends that Bush, in contrast, betrays an ''uncurious intellect'' speaking to the larger question of leadership.

Lichtman said that assertion has had some merit but might be getting outdated, with Bush showing himself more surefooted than many people thought. ''I think he's come a long way to dispelling that,'' he said.