Democrats’ ‘Pilots’ Must Chart Course

Democrats great and small are now faced with a hard choice: Find a way at their convention in Atlanta to produce fresh nominees with a powerful national appeal, or rubber-stamp a scarred standard-bearer with a modest base of support who will probably “lead” them to another landslide electoral loss in November.

The “bad” news, underlined by the outcome in Illinois and a movement toward an uncommitted slate led by party leaders in New Jersey, is that it is now practically certain that no active candidate will arrive at the July convention with even one-third of the delegates he needs to win the nomination outright. But the good news is that an inconclusive contest offers the Democrats an opportunity to adopt what I will call an Adlai Stevenson strategy--namely, to turn their convention into an open search for a high-quality ticket that can win next November, which might or might not include some of the current candidates.

But this strategy is being held in abeyance now by the preposterous argument (propounded by Democratic Party Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. and supporters of the current crop of candidates) that the list of eligible aspirants should be restricted to the marathon campaigners who participated in the bleary-eyed steeplechase known as the primaries. On its face this is an absurd contention. Why should any political party automatically award its nomination to a weak candidate who has only been able to capture one-third of the elected delegates?

The truth is that the current process of year-long, high-risk campaigns drives out many of the best-qualified individuals in both political parties. Can one imagine a Dwight Eisenhower or an Adlai Stevenson wandering around Iowa for 148 days mumbling the same speech day after day? Or can one envision a Franklin Roosevelt abandoning his duties as governor of New York to conduct a year-long wheelchair campaign through the small towns of New Hampshire?

It is, to use a current phrase, “voodoo politics” to contend that only those who have “paid their dues” by participating in the primaries are entitled to have their presidential credentials considered at Atlanta. Does it make sense, for example, to argue that Albert Gore and Paul Simon are the only senators with presidential credentials, when talented colleagues like Maine’s George Mitchell, Georgia’s Sam Nunn, Arkansas’ Dale Bumpers and New Jersey’s Bill Bradley are standing in the wings? Similarly, is it convincing to contend that Richard Gephardt is the only House member prepared to lead the nation, when the whole country knows the capabilities of his peers Lee Hamilton, Tom Foley and Speaker Jim Wright? And, with such successful governors as Michigan’s Jim Blanchard, Ohio’s Dick Celeste, Arkansas’ Bill Clinton and New York’s Mario Cuomo on the scene, is it rational to argue that the list of state leaders eligible for the national ticket should be confined to Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis?

Before the flawed “reforms” that generated the present predicament, California’s former winner-take-all primaries had the merit of sending a loud message to the conventions--and often to the nation as well--at the end of the primary season. But now the fractionated results of jumbled primaries have cast the Democrats adrift on an uncharted sea. There need be no dismay, however, for the days of brokered conventions are a thing of the past--and the new “super-delegate” rules of the party now automatically provide experienced “pilots” to help the convention chart a sound course. The “super delegates” are 43 senators, 210 members of the House, the members of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic governors. They will make up 15% of the delegates, and it is now clear that they and other potent party leaders must play the pivotal role at Atlanta.

Do the leaders of my party have the guts and the gumption to blaze a trail out of their morass and pick a ticket that can beat George Bush in November? Stay tuned. We will know the answer soon.