Jackson and Dukakis: A Panic Grips the Party

Here is a paradox: Michael S. Dukakis’ campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is faltering. His party is beginning to panic. Yet, according to the polls, Dukakis is running a strong race against George Bush and has a far better chance of being elected President than any other Democrat. How can he be doing so well and so poorly at the same time?

The explanation has less to do with Dukakis than with the way we choose Presidents. We want one kind of candidate in a primary and another kind in a general election. Primary voters are looking for cheap thrills. General election voters want security. What makes Dukakis a weak primary candidate--blandness--may make him an ideal candidate in November. He’s not a great date, you might say, but he’d make a fine husband.

Dukakis’ poor third-place showing in Illinois and his devastating loss to Jesse Jackson in Michigan last month exposed his central weakness: He doesn’t have anything to say. So far, Dukakis has won only by outspending and out-organizing other candidates in New England and scattered liberal and ethnic enclaves. Party leaders, shocked by the thinness of his appeal, have been shouting advice. “Get a message,” they say. “Fast. Or Jackson will be at the top of the ticket.”

Dukakis’s answer: “I am what I am.” The voters, he said last week, will have to decide “which one of us would be the best candidate to defeat George Bush.” Dukakis was calling attention to his strength. Four recent polls showed Dukakis and Bush running neck-and-neck (two had Dukakis slightly ahead, two had Bush slightly ahead). The same polls showed Sen. Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee, running roughly 17 points behind Bush.

And which Democrat was the weakest standard-bearer? None other than Jackson, the candidate who says he has “message, authenticity and soul.” Apparently that’s not what the voters want in a President this year. Bush beat Jackson by 24-26 points in every poll. If party bosses still retired to smoke-filled rooms, there is little doubt which candidate the Democrats would end up with. Dukakis. He’s safe. He’s dull. He won’t make any trouble. And he just might win.

According to one theory, Jackson is getting more votes this year because he is trying to be moderate and reasonable. But the nature of his support--blacks, gays, students and white liberal activists--raises doubts about that.

Jackson is strong because the rest of the Democratic field is weak. Last year, people complained that the Democratic candidates looked like a bunch of dwarfs. “Don’t worry,” said wise old party leaders, “as soon as the primaries get under way, one or two of the candidates will grow in stature and begin to look like leaders.” Well, the primaries are half over and, in the words of Fanny Brice, we’re still up to our keisters in dwarfs. Nobody has caught the voters’ imagination. For Democrats looking for a message--mostly those on the left--Jackson is the only candidate saying anything.

There is a reason why no Democrat has been able to sell a message. The reason is Ronald Reagan. He has so transformed the national agenda that Democrats are no longer confident the voters will buy what they have to sell, which is big government. While the revolt against government that brought Reagan to power is over, there is no evidence that voters want to go back to the bad old days of high taxes, high spending and high inflation. Most Democrats are fearful of leading a ideological assault on Reaganism. Instead, they try repackaging their activist agenda by talking about “competitiveness” and “strategic investment.”

A couple of Democrats did stick their necks out and offer a strong message. Former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt talked about new taxes. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri called for a more aggressive trade policy. They frightened voters and got their heads chopped off. Dukakis doesn’t frighten anybody, however, and so he has survived. Here’s how he put it last week: “I’m a guy who has been in politics for 25 years, who is an experienced and, I hope, successful chief executive. Somebody who has run governments, balanced budgets, built a strong economy, appointed cabinets and picked judges.” Exactly the kind of guy you’d want your daughter to marry.

Which is why the Jackson counter-reaction has set in. “Wait a minute,” Democrats are saying. “We want a few thrills before we settle down.” In the time-honored party tradition, primary voters are ganging up on the front-runner. Jackson is the “Stop Dukakis” candidate, just as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts was the “Stop Carter” candidate in 1980 and Gary Hart was the “Stop Mondale” candidate in 1984. It always happens--and never works.

But it still has the Democratic Establishment in a panic. They don’t want to run with Jackson atop the ticket. What worries them is not that Jackson is unelectable. They are worried they may be unelectable running on a Jackson ticket. Vast numbers of Democrats would stay home, penalizing Democratic candidates at all levels. The U.S. House of Representatives, the Democrats’ one impregnable fortress, could actually go Republican for the first time since 1954.

Primary voters, mostly party activists looking for thrills, don’t worry too much about electability. They want someone with “message, authenticity and soul.” The Republicans have gone through a similar process. First they eliminated candidates who offered strong messages--former Delaware Gov. Pierre S. (Pete) du Pont, Rep. Jack Kemp of New York and Pat Robertson. No need to frighten voters. The GOP then faced a choice between Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, highly electable, and Bush, whose voter appeal is questionable but whose loyalty to Reagan is not. Partisans value loyalty more than electability. So they went for Bush, who gives them Reagan’s message and--they hope--Reagan’s soul.

Bush should listen to Dukakis, who said last week, “One of the things we’ve learned over these past few months is, don’t try to be somebody you’re not.” When Bush tries to be macho, like Reagan, the result is embarrassing (“It was really tension city in there,” he said after his live TV confrontation with Dan Rather). Dukakis sometimes tries to put on a populist act to be a little more like Jackson. Bad idea. Pat Boone should not sing with The Temptations, and Dukakis should not try to be Joe Six-Pack.

What the voters seem to want in 1988 is change--but not too much. They want the new President to deal with Reagan’s mistakes--the deficit, trade, Iran-Contra--and pay more attention to problems of social and economic justice. But they do not want to endanger the two things Reagan is seen as having achieved: lower inflation and a greater sense of military security. The Democrats cannot do anything that puts those things at risk--for example, putting Jackson on the Democratic ticket.

To Jackson voters and liberal activists, Dukakis is a timid choice. Instead of posing an ideological challenge to everything Reagan stands for, Dukakis only promises to make government work better. That is called “me too” politics, and activists don’t like it. But it may be the only way Democrats can win.

The alternative is to take a risk and nominate someone with a strong message. Republicans did that with Barry M. Goldwater in 1964, Democrats with George McGovern in 1972. Both went down to glorious defeat. Of course, no matter whom they nominated, the GOP would probably have lost in 1964, as would the Democrats in 1972. This year, however, the Democrats have a real chance. They can’t afford risks. A third defeat in a row would not be glorious.

The exception is, of course, Reagan--definitely not a “me too” politician. The GOP took a big risk by nominating him in 1980. And he won--because Jimmy Carter was utterly discredited. The voters were desperate for change. In the end, Reagan won with only 50.7% of the vote. The 1980 lesson applies only if you believe Reaganism is utterly discredited. Some Democrats do. They are ready to nominate Jackson.

Otherwise, the Democrats have to offer a safe alternative for people unhappy with the status quo. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a safe alternative in 1952. Richard M. Nixon was believed safe in 1968, especially since everywhere Hubert H. Humphrey and George Wallace went, a riot broke out. John F. Kennedy was not exactly safe in 1960; he was a 43-year-old Roman Catholic. Nor was Carter safe in 1976; he was a “born-again” politician from the Deep South with no national experience. But neither was an ideologue, and each ran a moderate campaign.

Dukakis is fairly safe and more to the point, his blandness means that he can absorb a broad coalition of discontent. Remember that Reagan won 59% of the vote in 1984. The Democrats have to convince 9% of the electorate to switch sides because they are unhappy with the way things are going. Threatening them will probably not work.

Dukakis offers no real vision. But after eight years of Reagan, the voters may have had enough vision for a while. Dukakis does offer the voters something they are not getting from Reagan, however--management. For that, he has been labeled a “techno-weenie.” But if you want to solve problems like the budget deficit and the trade deficit, what kind of person do you ask for--a technician or a visionary?

We may very well end up with a choice between a wimp and a weenie for President. In that case, a weenie may not look so bad.