IF YOU SEE people smiling nowadays, odds are they're Democrats. Dese Dems are happy, of course, about snatching the Senate out from the reactionary clutches of the GOP. And well they should be. But Paul Kirk and Co. seem to have already called the caterer for another victory celebration a bit further up Pennsylvania Avenue two years hence. Much as I hate to be a party-pooper, please permit me to switch gears, mix metaphors and rain on the Democrats' victory parade.

Hill Spill

First things first. What happened Tuesday? The Democrats picked up eight Senate seats across the country, exceeding even their own best expectations. They now hold a sturdy 55-45 edge in the upper chamber. With that lead comes control of the Senate's agenda and its committees.

The Republicans can count their lucky Warren Burgers that the Chief Justice resigned when he did. Would a Judiciary Committee headed by Teddy Kennedy or Joe Biden have approved the nomination of William Rehnquist to the top spot on the top court? Maybe. Probably. But Dan Manion, for one, wouldn't have stood a prayer.

For all of the nonsensical talk during the '80s among cocky Republicans and Chicken Little Democrats of a rightward realignment, voters Tuesday sent some pretty liberal men--and one woman--to Washington. Considering also the liberals elected in 1984, and discounting the cranky Southern bad ol' boys who will chair key committees, the complexion of the new Senate is a fairly healty pink.

I'm looking forward to watching some of the younger, liberal Democratic turks who will snag sub-committee chairmanships start raising some muck about, let's say, Reagan's Central America quagmire. And maybe now that he doesn't chair a major committee, people won't listen when Jesse Helms talks. Is this all reason for rejoicing? Yeah. Is it cause for a complacent, more-of-the-same approach in 1988? Nah.

As I said, It seems the national Democrats have already ordered ice to cool the champagne for a World Series locker room-like celebration in the Oval Office in '88--one to which Reagan presumably wouldn't send a congratulatory telegram. "The voters have rejected Reaganism!" their thinking goes. "Don't you see? They like Reagan-but not his philosophy!!" That's probably true. But to think that voters went for Democrats because the Dems formed, let alone articulated, some sensible, coherent alternative to Reaganism is just ridiculous.

Democratic Chairman Kirk said Tuesday evening that his party won the Senate on the issues. That's nonsense. And what about the gubernatorial races? If anything, this year's Senate campaigns were among the least issueoriented in a long while. Most of the contact between candidates and and electorate occurred via television. And most of that was through negative ads hominem. I probably shook more hands at my bar mitzvah than either Alan Cranston or Ed Zschau did this fall in the entire state of California.

Even where Democrats ousted Republicans over real-live issues, they were not of the kind the Democrats could weave into a successful national strategy. Take the Dems who knocked off sitting Senators in the Dakotas. Well, they did so by attacking the incumbents for failing to do enough to help farmers in the region. So they'll come to D.C. and vote for more farn bailouts? Wonderful. They--and their counterparts across the country--did not advocate a "Democratic" platform. Why? Because no such positions-cum-philosophy exists.

HOW, THEN, DID the Dems sweep to such impressive victories? The first answer, the obvious one, is that parties in their sixth year of governing historically have lost ground. The average loss is seven seats. The Republicans lost eight.

Even more important, though, was the caliber of the candidates on each side. Pericles didn't run on the Democratic ticket, but the Democrats did field a solid slate. The Republican trenches, on the other hand, were filled by a bunch of losers. In 1980 a whole slew of hacks slid into the Senate on Reagan's coattails, and on very slim majorities. Their time was up in 1986. The Gipper couldn't win this one for them, and they were recalled like so many defective Fords.

The final reason for the Democratic takeover of the Senate, though, may justify some optimism. Reagan toured the country in the final weeks of the campaign rehashing his 1980 campaign against the dreaded James Carter. He asked the people not to send similar types back to D.C. to "tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend."

People didn't buy it, I guess. Perhaps it has dawned on the masses that, after six years in office, Reagan and the Republicans bear some responsiblity for their policies. The trick for the Dems in 1988 will be to come up with some alternatives to the G.O.P., not just run against it.