IT ISN'T WORKING

BOSTON -- The state of our political system -- the depressing state -- was
illuminated by a report in The New York Times last week. The story, by
Michael R. Gordon with Steven Lee Myers, showed how petty domestic politics
had imposed heavy costs, financial and diplomatic, on plans for a U.S.
missile shield. The Clinton administration thought of building the
anti-missile system at Grand Forks, N.D., where an exception written into
the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty allows a U.S. installation. But then
computers showed that the single system would not cover the far western end
of the Aleutian Islands, with a population of a few thousand.

That discovery killed the plan. Why? Because the Senate Appropriations
Committee's defense subcommittee is headed by Senator Ted Stevens,
Republican of Alaska. No one was willing even to ask him about the idea of
leaving those few constituents of his unprotected.

So the plan now being considered by President Clinton would put a huge radar
installation on a remote Aleutian Island and deploy 100 interceptors in
central Alaska. The change will add $2 billion to the cost of the system --
and require problematic negotiation with Russia about amendment or
abandonment of the ABM treaty.

That tale illustrates a curious aspect of contemporary American life. In
business, we expect hard-nosed leaders to make decisions based on cost and
comparative advantage -- and we thrive economically as a result. But in
public policy, fewer and fewer decisions are made on the substantive merits.
The so-called missile shield is an example in another sense, even more
profound. President Clinton is considering a "thin" system, designed to deal
with the possibility of long-range nuclear missiles coming from such
countries as North Korea. Republicans in general, and Gov. George W. Bush in
particular, are arguing for a much bigger and more expensive system that
would also cover American troops abroad and our allies.

The thin system is a halfway measure. It reminds one of what Winston
Churchill said about the name of a fellow M.P., Sir Alfred Bossom: "It's
neither one thing nor the other."

The purpose of the thin idea is plainly political. President Clinton wants
to protect himself -- and Vice President Gore -- from Republican charges
that they are weak on defense.

Ironically, it seems doubtful that the tactic will succeed. Despite enormous
scientific doubts about the workability of antimissile devices, and
extravagant cost, Americans have liked the dream of an invulnerable shield
since President Reagan floated it. Governor Bush is likely to score with his
call for an all-out system.

Nor would the limited plan now being considered by President Clinton obviate
the diplomatic and security dangers of any antimissile system. Forty-five
China scholars and diplomats, including President Reagan's ambassador to
Beijing, have warned that an early decision to begin building any new system
would provoke China into "negative steps that would undermine American
security."

Politics also underlies another dangerous decision: the proposal, just
approved by Congress, to send more than $1 billion in aid to Colombia to
fight drugs. Here again President Clinton embraced an idea whose
ramifications have hardly been thought through in order to protect himself
from being called soft on drugs.

Drugs are a subject that has paralyzed American political leadership for a
generation and more. The war on drugs fills our prisons without reducing
drug use. But only a few politicians have been brave enough to say that the
emperor has no clothes.

The other day the chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, Judith S.
Kaye, ordered the courts to begin offering treatment instead of jail time to
nonviolent criminals who are addicts. It took a judge to do what every study
has shown is more effective and far less expensive.

Our sluggish democracy has always depended on courageous political
leadership. It took a strong president and dedicated Congressional leaders,
working together, to end American isolationism after World War II -- and to
act on civil rights in the 1960's. When will we get the leadership to deal
forthrightly with today's problems?