As we head toward 2005, George Bush has something far more powerful than a phony “mandate” working for him. The president’s biggest weapon is media stenography.

Think about it: On the domestic scene, how else would it be possible to win 51 percent of the vote but get to set 100 percent of the news agenda? Yet that’s the reality as Washington and the national press buzz overtime with speculation about Bush’s Social Security and tax reform plans.

Don’t get me wrong. Social Security needs tweaking as the boomers age. (Indeed, I usually get slammed by my fellow Democrats for being too “helpful” to Republicans who rightly argue that the system needs reform.)

But if you ask me (or better yet, the American people) what key domestic issues should be addressed this year or next, soaring health costs, record budget deficits, the 45 million uninsured and the dismal state of schools for poor children rank much higher.

“Tax reform” – especially in the “shift the burden off the well-to-do” spirit by which most Republicans interpret that phrase – isn’t on any voter’s short list. Yet because Bush won by 3 million votes in a nation of 300 million people, we’ll get buckets of ink on tax reform and barely a whisper on the uninsured.

In one sense, of course, the cause of this is obvious, but as every parent knows, the obvious questions can be the most profound. Whose agenda is it anyway? The implicit premise of national press behavior is that because President Bush won, he now gets to dictate the terms of public debate. Press leaders themselves might articulate what’s happening differently: They’d say that because Republicans now control Washington, the GOP agenda is the news, because it’s what is likely to be debated and perhaps enacted.

But why is “likelihood” the essential definer of what constitutes news? This makes political journalism a close cousin of weather forecasting. It’s part of what matters, yes, but it’s hardly the bulk of what’s important.

In my experience, top editors and producers tend to be uncomfortable making their assumptions explicit here. They prefer to stand behind the cloak of a mysterious thing called “news judgment.” They know “news” when they see it.

But here’s the thing. Public life is like any bulletin board (or a front page) of finite size. When some things are chosen for that bulletin board, others are by definition crowded out. So, “hard news” (like bombs in Iraq) aside, a citizen should always ask when he plucks his newspaper off the driveway in the morning: “Why are we discussing what we are discussing?”

More often than not its because some political operative wants it this way. For example, Bush’s political intent is plainly to have “tax reform” in the headlines between now and the 2006 midterm elections, since when campaigns revolve around issues like taxes and national security, Republicans tend to prevail; when they focus on areas like health care or education, Democrats tend to do better.

The most highly valued skill in politics is “news management” or “agenda control.” The press knows this but isn’t sure what to do about it.

Still, someone ought to be asking what might generically be called the Swift Boat question: How does a rogue group wielding wild charges come to dominate political news for a critical month in a presidential campaign? They’ll find the same dynamic explains why a staged economic forum convened by the White House on Dec. 15 and 16 can become a big news deal as well. (Here’s a wild prediction: Tax reform and Social Security will loom large on the agenda of the handpicked participants.)

All these things become “news” by design when smart operatives exploit the press norm of stenography. I’m not saying that all the national press does is take dictation (far from it). And with some officials, especially the president, it may not be easy for the press to find a better way. Democrats, meanwhile, could surely be more creative publicists of their own causes.

But all that said, the troubling equation remains: In American political culture today, 51 percent of the vote gets you nearly 100 percent of the agenda-setting. Doesn’t this strike any editors and producers as a disservice to their audience?

Matt Miller is a syndicated columnist and author. Reach him on the Web at: www.mattmilleronline.com.