WHEN CITIZENS CHOOSE Change

In 1988, Americans must decide whether they want change or continuity. Do we continue in the same direction or change course and follow different policies? In Monday’s Iowa caucuses, the answer was loud and clear. Iowans voted for change. The candidates who did well in both parties made the strongest case for change--Democrat Richard A. Gephardt, Republicans Bob Dole and Marion G. (Pat) Robertson.

The status-quo candidates--George Bush on the Republican side and Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis for the Democrats--fared poorly in Iowa. But they will have their chance this week in New Hampshire. If Iowa was the extreme test of the change argument, New Hampshire is an equally strong test of support for the status quo.

The contrast between the two states is stark. Iowa is a farm and manufacturing economy that only recently began to climb out of recession. The state has been losing population since 1980. New Hampshire, with the nation’s lowest unemployment rate, has a booming high-tech and service economy. Its population has grown almost 10% since 1980.

Ask the people who live there. When CBS News polled New Hampshire voters last month, 53% said their state’s economy was in very good shape. The figure for Iowa: 2%. President Reagan’s job-approval rating in Iowa was almost 20 points lower than in New Hampshire.

Dukakis and Bush have enjoyed strong leads in New Hampshire polls because they are running as incumbents in a prosperous state. Bush is incumbent vice president and Dukakis is the incumbent governor of a neighboring state that dominates New Hampshire media. The Reagan legacy and the “Massachusetts miracle” are expected to play well in New Hampshire. In Iowa, they were a flop.

Last week, The Los Angeles Times poll asked Republican caucus-goers in Iowa how they thought things were going in the country. Only 18% found them going in the right direction. They voted for Bush. By contrast, 30% said things “have gotten off on the wrong track.” They voted for Robertson. The remaining 52% were ambivalent; they said things were “somewhere in between.” They voted for Dole. In other words, those who voted for Dole and Robertson were registering discontent. How much discontent? Dole and Robertson came in first and second. Bush came in third, seriously wounded.

When Bush is wounded, he bleeds. Right now he is hemorrhaging. He may soon bleed out. In a hysterical effort to salvage his candidacy, Bush is trying to imitate Dole. Dole, a Kansan, campaigned on the theme, “He’s one of us” in Iowa--making Bush “one of them.” Last week, Bush, who grew up in Connecticut, told New Hampshire voters, “I’m one of you.” A reporter pointed out that the vice president claims to be a Texan. “I’m one of them, too,” Bush replied. “I voted in every election in Texas since 1948.” How about Massachusetts, which votes on Super Tuesday? “Can’t vote in Massachusetts,” Bush said. “But I was born there. I’m one of them, too.”

Dole, who knows the Reagan legacy is far more popular in New Hampshire than in Iowa, has been busy linking himself to Reagan. “For those Republicans who are campaigning to pick up the national security legacy that Ronald Reagan will leave behind,” he said last week, “I challenge them to join me in this clear and unequivocal pledge: I will develop SDI (the President’s Strategic Defense Initiative). I will test SDI. I will deploy SDI.” Bush and Dole are trading identities. Bush is doing it in the wrong state, however.

Robertson, the other big GOP winner in Iowa, is on a roll. Robertson supporters are organized and intensely committed. The smaller the turnout, the better he does. Robertson won the Iowa straw poll last year (where you had to pay to vote). He came in second at the caucuses last week (where you had to attend a meeting to vote). Now, to prove he is a player, he has to win a primary. He may do just that in the South. Evangelical voters were energized by Iowa; they may come to the polls in large numbers for South Carolina on March 5 and Texas on March 8.

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, Robertson is trying to break out of his evangelical base. He wants to displace Rep. Jack Kemp of New York as the leader of the party’s conservative wing. Robertson has a beef with Kemp. In Michigan last month, Kemp broke with Robertson and joined Bush to deprive Robertson of his rightful delegate share.

Kemp’s support comes from conservative activists more interested in economics than religion. Robertson can win these “secular conservatives” only if they give up on Kemp. Even though they know Robertson can’t win the nomination, they have to be persuaded to vote for him to “send them a message.” It could happen. Conservatives feel angry and betrayed these days and Robertson is much better at the politics of resentment than Kemp.

The Republican contest is like a Chinese menu. The party will choose one Establishment conservative from Column A--either Bush or Dole. And it will choose one right-wing populist from Column B--either Robertson or Kemp. If Dole beats Bush in New Hampshire next week, and if Robertson comes out ahead of Kemp, both choices will have been made. The GOP will spend the rest of the primary campaign trying to figure out how to keep Robertson off the ticket.

The Democrats also voted for change in Iowa. Gephardt did best among economically dispossessed Democrats who thought things had “gotten off on the wrong track” and who wanted “a big change.” Dukakis did best among Democrats satisfied with the status quo. Dukakis’ appeal is based on competence; he was the first choice among Iowa voters who wanted good management. Sen. Paul Simon’s appeal is morality; he got the votes of Democrats looking for someone they could trust. Gephardt’s appeal is populism; he offered protection to voters who felt threatened and vulnerable.

Gephardt’s winning strategy was the same as Dole’s. He divided the world into “us” and “them.” Gephardt contrasted “our America” with “their America,” which included “the trade Establishment that traffics in the sell-off of American assets and jobs.” He picked up many of Jesse Jackson’s themes, a fact that Jackson did not fail to notice. But Jackson also did well in Iowa. He got 9% of the delegates in a state that is only 1% black.

Which Democrats will survive? Peter Hart, a Washington pollster, has suggested a useful rule: A Democrat’s place in Iowa plus his place in New Hampshire cannot add up to more than four. Dukakis came in third in Iowa, so he must come in first in New Hampshire to survive. Simon came in second in Iowa; so he has to come in first or second in New Hampshire. Since Gephardt came in first in Iowa, he can afford to come in third in New Hampshire. By coming in fifth and sixth in Iowa, former Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt and Gary Hart are already out of the race.

The Democratic contest is also like a Chinese menu. Column A is the liberals--Dukakis and Simon. The Democrats will have to choose one of them. That will be done in New Hampshire if Simon comes in third. Column B contains the party’s self-styled “populists”--Gephardt and Sen. Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee. That contest will be settled in the South on Super Tuesday. Jackson is the fortune cookie. The Democrats get him no matter what they order.

The only way the Democrats can win is by combining liberalism and populism. That isn’t easy. Dukakis is a cool technocrat, without a populist bone in his body. Simon confuses populism with folksiness. He is the Orville Redenbacher of the Democratic Party. The populist credentials of Gephardt and Gore are open to question. Gephardt, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, is really a Washington insider. Gore is the product of a distinctively elitist upbringing.

How can Gephardt and Gore claim to be populists? Because they are trying to act like tough guys. Gore says he will be tough on defense. Gephardt says he will be tough on trade, unlike those who “run for political cover on the trade issue.” Gore had hoped to be the alternative to whichever northern liberal came out of Iowa and New Hampshire. He could then mobilize Southern voters to “stop Simon” or “stop Dukakis.” Gephardt spoiled things by winning Iowa. Now Gephardt has the prior claim on being the alternative to the northern liberal.

Gephardt’s problem is that he has a record of flip-flops on the issues. He has reversed himself on abortion, the 1981 tax cut, tuition tax credits, the MX missile and a freeze on Social Security benefits. “I’d rather change and be right than be rigid and be wrong,” he said. Last week, Gephardt insisted that he would not give up his support for an oil import fee even though it is highly unpopular in New Hampshire. He wants to prove that he is now a man of consistency. Yet another flip-flop.

Once the Democrats decide upon a liberal and a populist, the two candidates may have to fight it out all the way to the convention. That’s because Jackson is poised to do better in 1988 than in 1984. If the race comes down to Dukakis versus Gephardt, each will be tempted to make a deal with Jackson to win a majority of the delegates. They will quickly discover, however, that a deal with Jackson could poison the ticket. The problem is Jackson’s radicalism, not his race. In the end, the two leading candidates will probably find it easier to make a deal with each other.

What will the voters eventually choose in 1988--change or continuity? Let us approach the problem scientifically. Research has shown that if the incumbent President’s job-approval rating is over 50%, his party will probably retain control of the White House. If his approval rating drops below 50%, the opposition party is likely to win. Where is Reagan’s approval rating these days? At 50%--where it has been for ost of the past year. Right on the line.

We can also look at the “misery index,” the sum of the nation’s unemployment and inflation rates. If they total over 10%, the President’s party is in trouble. Under 10% and the electoral prospects for the President’s party are good. Where is the misery index these days? The latest unemployment rate is 5.7%. Inflation is at 4.4%. Add them together and you get a misery index of 10.1%--again, right on the line.

Thus, when asked whether the voters want change or continuity this year, Big Science cannot answer. Maybe the voters of New Hampshire can.