Pragmatists Gain Control of GOP Race, So Give Edge to Democrats--This Week

It was super for Vice President George Bush and pretty super for Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. But, as I see it, both parties still have a problem.

Only a few days ago the conventional wisdom was that the Republican Party was threatened by a pragmatist-fundamentalist split. That already looks like ancient history. Evidently it is the Democrats who have a problem-preacher within their ranks. All this should remind us, as British Prime Minister Harold Wilson remarked in the 1970s, that a week is a long time in politics.

The interest has now definitely switched to the Democratic race, however, and that should help the party. The dismal showing by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson in his own region and the final collapse of Rep. Jack Kemp of New York leaves the pragmatic Bush-Dole Republican rump in uncontested control. What could be duller than that? I for one will not be following the remainder of the Republican race with any great anticipation.

The Democratic contest remains surprisingly open. My sense is that the party elders (among them Robert Strauss) have, without telling us, restored influence to brokers inside smoke-filled (or no doubt now smokeless) rooms. A large uncommitted bloc of delegates (mostly elected officials) may well have the final say in Atlanta. It seems highly likely that Dukakis will win the nomination. Who finishes second? Sen. Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee did better than expected, winning five of 13 Southern and border states, and, if forced to predict, I would suggest a Dukakis-Gore ticket in the end. It would be a strong ticket, too--certainly more formidable than the 1984 odd couple, Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro.

But what about Jesse Jackson? Everyone keeps asking what he will demand, and no one knows the answer--no doubt including Jackson himself.

Notice, however, that he came in ahead of Gore in eight of those 13 states. So it may yet turn out that the process that was intended to push the party gently to the right ended up promoting a liberal Massachusetts governor and a black preacher who is frankly appealing to the left.

A week ago Republicans were worrying about the prospect of a Democratic ticket headed by Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri. But it turned out that Democrats were even more worried. A combined Dukakis-Gore onslaught pushed Gephardt into a fourth place from which he may not recover.

On the Republican side, I don’t see how Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas can recover. He has challenged the vice president to debate him, Lincoln-Douglas style, and no doubt the vice president will decline. Lashing out will do Dole no good, but remaining dutifully caged by his handlers (as he has in the past three weeks) will presumably do no good, either.

For conservatives, the decline and fall of Robertson comes mainly as a relief. He indeed was threatening to make life very difficult for the Republicans. Even to his own supporters, Robertson turned out to be a disappointment--especially in his baseless and unwise attribution of the Jimmy Swaggart scandal to Machiavellians in the Bush campaign. The collapse of Kemp’s campaign has been the big disappointment to conservatives. His supporters remain mystified--he was in many ways the most attractive Republican candidate.

As I see it, the Republicans’ problems can be summarized in two words: George Bush. I believe that I speak for many conservatives when I voice the fear that, as likely as not, he will contrive to lose in November. He just doesn’t look presidential, or (perhaps worse) sound it. A friend of mine who worked for the vice president said that Bush is a decent man who “believes the last person who spoke to him.” He is also well trained to listen to experts of the State Department variety, usually overflowing with bad advice.

Bush could of course have a good chance against Dukakis. The economy, often said to be decisive on these occasions, is in better shape than is generally recognized: employment and income up, gross national product still rising, inflation down. Bush’s strong showing in the South is a measure of comparatively good economic times and voter contentment there. Moreover, the historical precedent that incumbent vice presidents lose the presidency is based these days on the inadequate evidence of Richard Nixon in 1960 (the election may well have been stolen from him in Illinois) and Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

But Dukakis is fluent, mellifluous, articulate--seemingly imbued with plan and purpose. It is said that he is vulnerable on the issues of defense and foreign policy, as the Democrats so frequently have been in recent decades. But the pragmatic Republicans, whose standard-bearer is George Bush, have already thrown away this big issue with nouveau detente and arms control. And what is Bush calling for in his inauspiciously isolated, keep-’em-at-a-distance campaign? Even more arms control.

This week I give the Democrats the edge in November.