He is out there, out of the main-stream...Do we want this country to go so far left?

--George Bush, of Michael Dukakis, in the first presidential debate

Gov. Michael S. Dukakis' major campaign failing has been his inability to counter Vice President George Bush's charge that his liberal values are "out of the mainstream" of American politics.

This became all too clear when he failed to respond to Bush's attack on the American Civil Liberties Union during the first presidential debate. Voters were left to wonder whether Dukakis did believe in the elimination of movie ratings and free press for child pornographers. Such thoughts play into Bush's hands as he tries to portray Dukakis as out of the mainstream on economic, military and moral issues.

Yet Dukakis is the one who should be best able to prove his opponent is out of the mainstream. This summer, working as a research intern for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, I examined hundreds of House of Representatives votes on major issues and the corresponding administration's positions. I found that if Reagan and Bush were in the House of Representatives, they would be among its 10 or 20 most conservative members.

On vote after vote, the administration supported measures which many and, in some cases, the majority of Republicans voted against. The Reagan administration repeatedly tried to eliminate the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which is the major source of federal legal assistance for the poor. Lawyers funded by the LSC routinely prevent families from being unfairly evicted from their homes and citizens from being illegally denied benefits.

The administration tried to do the same with the Small Business Administration, which guarantees loans to businesses that otherwise would never be able to exist or to create jobs. Reagan and Bush even wanted to eradicate the Departments of Energy and Education.

A few specific votes show exactly how far out of touch with the mainstream Bush is. In 1986, the administration's budget proposed cutting student financial aid by $20 billion over a period of four years. There was bipartisan opposition to this measure. The administration also backed an amendment to the Department of Education appropriations bill that would have cut education funding by more than $800 million. The majority of voting Republicans rejected the amendment.

In 1987, the administration tried to eliminate $900 million from mlow-income housing funds contained in the Housing and Community Development Act. And it supported a substitute to the Catastrophic Health Care bill which would have sliced benefits in half, raised seniors' out-of-pocket expenses, and eliminated the Democratic bill's drug subsidization provisions, which would reduce the financial burden of catastrophic illness.

Few heard about these votes because the legislation supported by the Administration did not become law. There has been scant press coverage of the administration's assault on the welfare state, largely because it hasn't succeeded.

WHAT makes this all so maddening is that Bush wants to be the "education president," tries to take credit for what he considers a booming housing market, and even boasts about the Catastrophic Health Care bill. He is trying to claim responsibility for the same Democratic legislation that he fought against.

Bush even tried to take credit for legislation he worked to repeal. To address the problems of the homeless, Bush suggested creating federally funded clinics to ease deinstitutionalization for the mentally ill. What Bush didn't mention was that a bill had already been passed to do exactly that; the Mental Health Systems Act was signed into law by President Carter in 1980. Once of Reagan's first executive acts in early 1981 was to insist that it be eliminated from the budget. Bush has no right to call for more clinics for the mentally ill; were it not for his administration, they would exist today.

So why can't Dukakis succeed in pointing out this election year conversion? Bush's campaign has painted Dukakis as a bleeding heart liberal from early on. The Dukakis campaign, however, preferred to attack Bush's "competence" rather than his record. It may have wanted to avoid implicit criticisms of Reagan and risk the backlash of voters who refuse to believe the man could have done anything wrong.

When Dukakis criticizes Bush's selection of Sen. Dan Quayle, for example, he doesn't stress that the Indiana Senator voted against civil rights legislation, child nutrition programs and the INF treaty. He doesn't mention that Quayle is as out of the mainstream as you can get. Instead, Dukakis tries to showcase Quayle's paltry experience and portray Bush's selection of him as incompetent.

Dukakis has chosen to run from Bush's attacks, not fight back. In the second presidential debate, Dukakis claimed "it's not labels" that are important, but issues. He's right. He should have shot back with numerous issues on which Bush has been nowhere near the mainstream.

But, by responding in generalities and failing to explain how much in the mainstream being "liberal" actually is, Dukakis keeps the attention focused on Bush's attacks. Voters think Dukakis is trying to run from his past, when in reality Bush should be running from his.

Editors Note: In the October 12 Crimson, an editorial column, "Protect Us From Profiles," closely borrowed from a Newsweek magazine article. The Crimson regrets the occurrence.