According to New York Times columnist (and former Crimson executive) Anthony Lewis '48, he is pointing America "backward toward economic and political disaster." He is trying to scale back the policies that have given us prosperity. He wants to end American leadership in the global economy.

Yet, chances are there won't be heated protests at the ARCO Forum tonight when Democrat Richard H. Gephardt mars the Harvard campus with his presence. No candlelight vigils are planned, and few students are likely to stand up bearing controversial signs during his speech. He is one of the most influential people in American politics today, and few seem to care what he says or does. Why? Two reasons.

First, Gephardt, House minority leader and 20-year representative of the St. Louis area, is not in power. Those right-wingers who'd be opposed to him are too pleased to find themselves still in the majority--and too concerned about their own leadership's attempted coups--to pay much attention to presidential posturing on the Democratic side.

Second, and more important, those who have the biggest gripes with Gephardt are not the loud-mouthed left. Gephardt's goaders, if they spoke up, would be the economic moderates--the Clinton voters with a little Ec 10 behind them. But then, things like fast track trade legislation just don't spark political passions. Moderates read the papers and vote, but too often remain on the sidelines as key debates are taking place. We live in a country of Crossfires, in which public discourse is harshly split. This fall, with bitter, partisan campaign finance investigations and the almost comical obstructionism of numerous presidential appointments, the inepitude of an overly partisan government has become painstakingly clear.

It would be easy to blame the worsening situation on the Republicans. If Fred Thompson would get back to writing legislation, if Trent Lott cared a little more about his country and a little less about his party, if Jesse Helms would just get off his high horse...But the responsibility to make Washington more productive does not lie solely with the GOP. Rather than lead the Democrats back to the past, Gephardt and company must accept the potential gain of engaging in cautious cooperation with the GOP.

As 2000 approaches, Gephardt, staking out a position to the left of Al Gore '69, has steadily retreated from moderation. Earlier this year, he refused to support the bipartisan budget bill, trying to paint an image as a defender of traditional Democratic interests. Then, last month, he led the Democratic charge against a renewal of so-called "fast track" trade legislation, which gave President Clinton broader latitude in negotiating trade deals. Eighty percent of Democrats in the House joined their fearful leader in voting no on the bill, citing concerns about human rights and the environment, and constituent fears about job losses from trade.

In an address in St. Louis in September, Gephardt acknowledged the importance of an open market, but argued that democracy and human rights interests trump free trade. "We must not put a price-tag on our beliefs," he said. Like the North American Free Trade Agreement, deals the president would negotiate, Gephardt argued, would merely reinforce a status quo in which children are forced to work, wages are insufficient and the environment is abused. This position is reasonable, and is adopted by many American politicians and citizens. It is quite plausible that Gephardt believes it himself.

But it seems equally plausible that in coming close to protectionism, Gephardt is pandering to organized labor and currying favor with a populace that fears underpaid workers in Mexico more than it fears duplicitous politicians on its own soil. This suspicion is all the more warranted given Gephardt's previous support of extending fast track authority to President Bush in 1991.

Whatever his motives, Gephardt is standing in the way of continued prosperity. The fear that foreign workers are seizing U.S. jobs is unfounded. As Lewis noted in the Times, despite the lowest trade barriers in history, the U.S. unemployment rate sunk to its lowest level in more than two decades. And Gephardt's protestations about workers' rights and environmental degradation only hold water if we believe that we can effect more change through idealism than persuasive engagement.

Gephardt's defense of the liberal position on other issues has been respectably dependable. Upon Congress' adjournment last month, he announced an agenda for next year that proves his pulse is still on the things that matter: ensuring the quality of care provided by HMOs, improving pension security and giving kids somewhere to go after school.

Nonetheless, all Gephardt's good works will be tarnished until he tones down his protectionist rhetoric and gets down to dollars and sense. Without such a shift, Gephardt is both hurting his chances at the presidency in 2000 and threatening economic progress at home and abroad well into the millenium.

Geoffrey C. Upton's column appears on alternate Tuesdays.