Sex, Copycatting and Tattling: When Candidates Duck the Deficit

Last month’s stock market crisis created a consensus in Washington on two points. First, the federal budget deficit will now become the central issue of the 1988 presidential campaign. According to pollster Geoffrey Garin, the financial crisis “becomes a defining issue for 1988, because the potential for tragedy, which was abstract a month or two ago, has now become real.”

Second, the economic issue is bound to boost the Democrats’ chances of turning the Republicans out of the White House. “Any uncertainty . . . in the economy gives the Democrats an opportunity to go out and really try to exploit the weaknesses in the Reagan program,” said Republican political consultant Edward J. Rollins. “The bottom line is that it’s got to hurt us.”

In situations where the experts agree, it is wise to ask, “What do they know?” In this case, they may not know very much.

Take the argument that economic uncertainty has to hurt Republicans because they are the “in” party. Maybe not. In an uncertain economic environment, voters usually want change, and that is what the “out” party is in a good position to offer. But the point is not likely to be lost on the “in” party. If Reaganomics looks as if it is headed for a shipwreck, the result may be to undermine George Bush’s claim on the GOP nomination. Because Bush is Ronald Reagan’s vice president, there is an unavoidable correlation between Reagan’s support and Bush’s support. Where Reagan is strong, Bush is strong (New Hampshire). Where Reagan is weak, Bush is weak (Iowa). If economic discontent spreads, then the Republican race will look more like Iowa and less like New Hampshire--in other words, bad for Bush.

The candidate best positioned to take advantage of Bush’s weakness is Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.). After all, the deficit is Dole’s issue. He advertises himself as a candidate who is tough and competent, who knows how to work with Congress and get things done. Recently, Dole has taken up a new theme--compassion for the disabled and disadvantaged. During the debate among the Republican candidates on Wednesday in Houston, Dole argued that the Republican Party has to show it is a “caring party” sensitive to the needs of the poor, minorities, the disabled and “those who are left behind.”

Dole was deliberately venturing into Democratic territory to stake a claim on the “fairness issue.” (He said he would hang a portrait of Harry S. Truman in the Cabinet Room.) In a time of economic uncertainty, voters are likely to want a candidate who offers economic security, and Dole clearly intends to challenge the Democrats’ monopoly of that theme.

Polls reveal that Dole has more appeal than any other Republican to Democrats and Independents. A Dole nomination means Republicans would be going with the candidate who has the best chance of winning in November. In fact, Dole is probably the only Republican who has a chance of winning in November.

The Democrats simply do not have a candidate with Dole’s stature. Moreover, an economic downturn is likely to throw the Democratic race into confusion. The 1988 race is the first in memory in which there is no candidate who epitomizes the “old politics” values of the Democratic Party--sharing, family, compassion, mutuality and the promise to protect people against economic adversity.

There is no Hubert H. Humphrey, no Edmund S. Muskie, no Henry M. Jackson, no Edward M. Kennedy, no Walter F. Mondale, no Mario M. Cuomo. Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois comes closest to those values, but even he voted for a balanced budget amendment. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri can claim experience as a leader in the House but he is no match for Dole in legislative stature. Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis has done a good job managing prosperity, not adversity, in his state.

The one candidate positioned to take advantage of an economic downturn is Jesse Jackson. Not only is he the least electable Democrat, but the more votes Jackson gets, the harder it is for any other Democrat to win a majority. The result is likely to be a lot of unseemly wheeling and dealing for the nomination, including possibly a poisonous deal with Jackson or an embarrassing appeal to a non-candidate like Cuomo to come in and save the party.

So the experts are right when they argue that, all other things being equal, a bad economy will help the Democrats. The problem is that all things are never equal.

As for the argument that the stock market crisis makes the deficit the principal issue of the 1988 campaign, the answer is, look again. The candidates in both parties are doing everything they can to avoid a serious debate on the deficit.

The Democrats have been cautious in their response to the financial crisis. They claim they do not want to be seen as taking advantage of bad news. Nonetheless, when it comes to offering plans for reducing the deficit, leading Democratic candidates don’t have much to say. None of them wants to talk about major domestic spending cuts for fear of offending important Democratic constituencies (in the Democratic lexicon, this is known as the sin of “me-tooism”). None wants to talk about serious defense cuts for fear of showing signs of military weakness (Carterism). None advocates raising taxes, except as “a last resort,” for fear of getting clobbered at the polls (Mondaleism).

Only two Democratic candidates have anything interesting to say about the deficit. One is former Gov. Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, who calls for tax increases and a strict needs test for all federal benefits. His ideas are called bold and risky. The other is Jackson, who advocates major cuts in military spending. His ideas are called radical and unrealistic. Neither is regarded as a serious contender.

All the other Democrats came out immediately and fearlessly for a bipartisan economic summit to resolve the deficit issue. Take it off the political agenda. Let Congress and the President work out some sort of compromise package to share the pain.

The Republican candidates were asked their deficit-reduction strategies in the Wednesday debate. Dole said, “We have to be statesmen on this issue, not Republicans and Democrats. I was at a meeting this morning (of the presidential-congressional budget commission), and we were doing just that.” Bush said, “I think it’s right to do what Bob’s engaged in and what the President and I are doing . . . . We have to lay partisan politics aside, get the problem solved and not raise taxes.” Well, of course. If the problem were solved, we wouldn’t have to raise taxes.

Only two Republican candidates had anything interesting to say about the deficit. One was Kemp, who denounced the idea of compromise, saying, “I don’t believe there’s any type of a budget deal you can make with (House Speaker) Jim Wright that’s going to bring down interest rates and deficits.” Kemp’s ideas are called bold and risky. The other was former Delaware Gov. Pierre S. (Pete) du Pont IV, who promised to veto any tax increase and to slash spending by cutting farm subsidies and reforming social security. His ideas are called radical and unrealistic. Neither is regarded as a serious contender.

What leading candidates of both parties want is to hand the deficit issue over to a bipartisan, legislative-executive negotiating committee. In other words, treat the issue as if it were “above politics.” Which means, keep it out of the campaign.

The political realities surrounding the deficit issue are the same now as they were before the stock market crash. Everybody--Congress, the President, Democrats, Republicans and the public--believes the deficit is a serious problem. But everybody believes that something else--cutting entitlements, raising taxes, slashing defense spending--would be a worse problem. That’s how we got into this mess in the first place.

There is not much evidence that Congress, the President, the Democrats or the Republicans have changed their minds. As for the public, a Time magazine poll taken after the crash found the public opposed to raising taxes or reducing spending for social programs and split on reducing military spending.

In Washington, the stock market plunge is being treated as a crisis. The odd thing is, the public does not seem to have any sense of a crisis. According to the polls, most Americans were unaffected by the crash. They continue to have confidence in the economy. A survey taken by the Conference Board found that consumer confidence dropped by only 5% after the stock market plunge. By comparison, consumer confidence dropped 33% after the 1973 surge in oil prices.

So there is good reason to believe the public may not really want to hear about the deficit in 1988. They’d rather hear about the important stuff. Like the wimp factor. Or who’s sleeping with whom. Or who copied his law school paper. Or which candidate is a tattletale. Those are certifiably presidential issues.