For Conservatives, Pessimism Is Setting In

The GOP delivered another surprise to the pollsters and a setback to Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas. Also to conservatives, I hasten to add. The foreboding that I detected among conservatives after Iowa has deepened into pessimism after New Hampshire.

Two-thirds of the Republican vote in the first primary of 1988 went to one or other of the two “moderates”--Vice President George Bush and Dole--while a meager one-third went to the three conservatives combined. After seven years of President Reagan, no line of succession to conservative leadership within the Republican Party has even remotely been established. If this is not an opportunity lost, I don’t know what is.

Many conservatives are admittedly relieved to find the waspish Dole in trouble. He went to New Hampshire with a big boost, smiled on the hustings, gained in the polls and finished 10 points behind Bush. When the results came in, Dole told Tom Brokaw of NBC that Bush should “stop lying” about his record. Dole could soon blaze ruinously into anger if he makes good on his promise to hit back. Dole comes across as Richard III without the crown--or, as a friend of mine put it not entirely jokingly, as “Richard Nixon without the moral uplift.”

But this scarcely helps conservatives. In the next few weeks the media spotlight will focus on the ding-dong Bush-Dole battle. Meanwhile, Rep. Jack Kemp of New York and former Delaware Gov. Pierre S. (Pete) du Pont IV will find themselves short of cash and attention. It will be all that they can do to stay in the race.

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson’s fifth-place finish may remove the grating grin from his face, but his zealous troops and plentiful cash will keep him in the presidential race until the New Orleans convention. Fred Barnes of the New Republic believes that Robertson has peaked, but conservative columnist Pat Buchanan told me that he thought Robertson “has more surprises in store for us.” I’m with Buchanan on this.

There’s still a possibility of a deadlocked convention, but the odds now favor Bush. Most conservatives whom I know believe that he would nonetheless contrive to lose in November. Christopher Hitchens of the Nation told me the other day that the liberals have all along been hoping for a Bush nomination, seeing him as beatable. The liberals fear Kemp, but he has not prospered.

On the Democratic side, former Gov. Bruce Babbitt of Arizona and former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado are effectively out of the running, although Hart will no doubt tag along for the fun of it and a minor role in Atlanta. “I love New Hampshire!” he said after his 1984 victory there. Now he will be glad to put it behind him.

An ominous note for the Democrats: Jesse Jackson has done better this year in both Iowa and New Hampshire than he did in 1984. The lack of party registration in many of the Southern states holding primaries on Super Tuesday, March 8, will permit conservative Democrats to cross over (perhaps voting for Robertson), leaving Jackson a potential Democratic winner. He seems destined to play a major role at the convention.

Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois is said to be in financial straits, and may not be able to continue. I hold no brief for Simon, but his television ads pointing to inconsistent voting by Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri were perfectly legitimate. One of the more absurd developments in 1988 has been the charge that such comparisons are “negative campaigning.” It sometimes seems that the press wants to reserve unto itself an exclusive right to decide which issues are germane.

The 16-point margin of victory by Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts may well be less impressive than it seems. Given the proximity of his home state, Dukakis was the neighboring, if not the favorite, son. His liberal views and consistent support for gay-rights legislation may well hurt him in the South, possibly to the advantage of Sen. Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee.

Gephardt is now the Democrats’ most formidable candidate. He wisely embraced the accusation by his more liberal opponents that he had supported Reagan’s tax cuts; supply-siders believe that this could put him on the road to victory in November. Democrats won the White House in 1960 and 1976 by campaigning to the right of Republicans on national-security issues. Since arms control and summitry render Republicans vulnerable on this score once again, it will be interesting to see if Gephardt risks such a rightward move. If so, he will be accused of opportunism, but the prospect of victory may tempt him.

In recent years and for both parties the primaries have devolved all too quickly into two-man races. This year it is my hope that a larger field will persevere longer. There are still many laps to run. Why shouldn’t voters have the opportunity to choose from among several rather than between two candidates?