No. 2 Slot Becomes Crucial in Both Parties

In New York, Jesse Jackson’s charmed life as a presidential candidate evidently came to an end.

He had earlier enjoyed a kind of diplomatic immunity from the scrutiny experienced by other candidates. But by tacit agreement, this was withdrawn in New York. First he was attacked by Sen. Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee, then by New York Mayor Edward I. Koch. Questions were raised about his associates at home, about his associations abroad and about his version of the night that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. At last, Jesse Jackson found himself on the defensive.

After the results came in, Mayor Koch in turn came in for criticism for his “divisive” tactics. A few days ago Norman Mailer wrote in the New York Times that Koch “may have succeeded in blasting the last rickety catwalk of communication between Jews and blacks” in New York. Lest we forget, however, a good many Democrats were hoping at the outset of the New York contest that someone would take Jackson down a peg or two.

Still, Koch’s candidate, Gore, did not prosper and is now presumably out of the race. Thus no senatorial or congressional candidate has risen to the top of the ticket, continuing a trend that has persisted in both parties since 1972 (when Sen. George McGovern won the Democratic nomination). Overall, however, Gore can take satisfaction from his 1988 performance. His position in the party is now in many respects comparable to that of Sen. John F. Kennedy in 1956, when he ran unsuccessfully against Adlai Stevenson.

Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, by contrast, emerged from his state’s primary considerably diminished. His prevarications strongly suggest that he had indeed been hoping for a brokered convention that would turn gratefully to him. Now this surely will not happen. In recent days Cuomo has even been subtly ridiculed by the press--a first for him. He must be kicking himself, for he surely believes that had he only entered the race, he could have defeated Dukakis, the lesser-known governor from the adjacent state of Massachusetts. Will we one day learn of a hidden reason why Cuomo did not run?

In all probability, then, we are looking at a Bush-Dukakis race this fall. (Vice President George Bush easily won an uncontested primary in New York, and now has no active opposition for the Republican nomination.) Conservatives and liberals will probably agree that this is not the most exciting prospect. A low voter turnout in November may be in the cards. Much will depend on the vice presidential choices.

It was noteworthy that the morning-after analysts of the New York result tiptoed nervously around the critical question: Will Dukakis, and the Democratic Party leaders, be able to keep Jackson off the ticket entirely? Their dilemma is obvious: Either risk reopening the New York wounds, imperiling Jewish loyalty to the party, or risk alienating the Democrats’ most enthusiastic group of supporters. Even after New York, Jackson in many respects looms larger on the political landscape than the gray, smooth-talking Dukakis. Indeed, in his lifetime Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. never achieved anything like Jackson’s current prominence. It would even now be premature to write off Jackson because (as Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. showed in 1976) a protest vote in the late primaries has become something of a Democratic tradition. Jackson could still win the California primary in June.

As for George Bush, he is going to have to do something to inject a note of excitement into his presidential bid. One conservative friend of mine said he thought that Bush was “running for lame duck.” Another said without hesitation that he would sit out a Bush-Dukakis contest. In fact, it is my unscientific impression that a good many conservatives will stay home on election day if Bush adds a like-minded “pragmatist” to the ticket.

On the other hand, someone like Education Secretary William J. Bennett would revive the conservatives’ flagging interest in the contest. Furthermore, as Bennett showed in a talk on the Western culture courses at Stanford University this week, it is possible for conservatives to score points--provided they are willing to take the offensive.

But this is exactly what the Republican pragmatists, now comfortably back in control of the party, never like to do. Their perennial tendency is to minimize differences between themselves and the Democrats--to take a low-profile route to the Oval Office.

It has not been a successful strategy in the past and it is not likely to work this year. A dynamic, conservative running mate is what Bush needs. But the unstated Republican objection no doubt will be: Such a candidate would overshadow Bush. Just asJackson would overshadow Dukakis. My sense is that it is in the selection of running mates that the ’88 race will be won or lost.