Issue Hurt Mondale in 1984 : Dukakis Bluntly Evading Special-Interest Pitfalls

Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis stood before a group of gay activists in Los Angeles one day last month and refused to say what his questioners wanted to hear.

“There is no constitutional right to be a foster parent,” he declared. But, they persisted, why would straight couples make better parents than gay ones? The answer, in essence: “Because.” Most of the audience, assembled to demonstrate support of gay activists for Dukakis, hissed loudly.

But the blunt back-and-forth, an inauspicious barometer of relations between candidate and interest group, seemed to unnerve Dukakis hardly at all. Whatever signal it sent to the gay community, aides in the campaign’s headquarters here believed it sent another to the electorate at large: that Dukakis was beholden to no one.

That message has emerged as a conspicuous subtext in the Dukakis campaign. It is implicit in his rhetoric, which addresses broad principles rather than making specific promises, in a schedule that sends Dukakis to high schools rather than union halls and in choosing delegates for their personal loyalty rather than their affiliation with any particular group.

In a political environment in which “special interest” has become an epithet, the strategy has served Dukakis well. It has freed him of the baggage that helped drag former Democratic presidential nominee Walter F. Mondale to electoral disaster in 1984. It has presented only a “moving target” to Republican assault, according to Bush deputy campaign manager Richard Bond.

Some Scattered Scars

It has also left scattered scars among constituency groups whose voting patterns will help to determine the fate of the Democratic Party--including women’s organizations, organized labor and gay activists. If the hurt is lasting, it may well influence the debate over the party platform.

But all indications thus far suggest that the Dukakis campaign has successfully shunned the special interest label without seriously jeopardizing his special interest support.

“He has turned his back on us, yes, but who has he treated differently?” said Virginia Apuzzo, a New York State official who is a prominent lesbian and women’s activist.

“There’s no vulnerability there,” Eddie Mahe Jr., a Republican political consultant, agreed. “This is the Democratic family. Everyone wants to win the election, so everybody’s going to get on board.”

That Dukakis has not acquired the special interest label so far may be due as much to outside forces as to decisions made by the candidate or his campaign. The Democratic Party, under the chairmanship of Paul G. Kirk Jr., has sought actively to scale back the influence of special interest groups. Those groups also learned lessons from the Mondale defeat, and many of their leaders had mixed feelings about playing so public a role this time around.

Aware of Negative Impact

“We were very cognizant this year of the negative impact of the special interest label on Walter Mondale,” said Ken Mulley, political director for the National Education Assn. “He was portrayed, in fact, as more or less kowtowing to the unions who endorsed him.”

More decisively, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination remained fragmented, with no obvious front-runner around whom constituency groups might confidently unite. Although all the Democratic candidates--and some Republicans as well--sent five-minute video tapes last summer to the 14.1-million-member AFL-CIO, the union was hopelessly divided when trying to endorse and, instead, chose to remain neutral.

That decision was mirrored by other unions and by other constituency groups, depriving the candidates of their electoral and organizational strength--but also freeing them from the onus that a flurry of special interest endorsements might have created.

In that environment, Dukakis simply “made a virtue of necessity” in staying clear of constituency groups, Robert Beckel, the former Mondale campaign manager, contends. Even so, said Vincent McCarthy, a Boston lawyer who is a longtime friend and sometime adviser to the candidate, “At the Dukakis campaign there was sensitivity from the beginning with respect to special interests.”

The candidate’s own inclinations to stay away from constituency politics were strongly reinforced by the experience of his top advisers, many of whom had worked for Mondale.

Former Mondale Adviser

“I may not be the world’s expert on doing things right,” said Susan Estrich, Dukakis’ campaign manager and a former senior adviser to Mondale, “but I’ve had an awful lot of experience with what goes wrong. We learned.”

“It is a conscious and well-conceived strategy,” said Greg Schneiders, a Democratic consultant and former adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Bruce Babbitt. “Dukakis clearly knew, as he set out seeking the nomination, that catering to the special interest groups was something that he had to handle very carefully.”

Dukakis sought to reinforce that image by promoting his positions even in settings hostile to them.

In an energy policy speech in Texas, he outlined his opposition to an oil import fee. In a New York appearance before the Council of Presidents of American Jewish Organizations, he refused to take a position on the question of Palestinian statehood.

And at the gathering of Western states gay rights activists in Los Angeles, Dukakis angered even the 70 gay supporters who had assembled to endorse him as he staunchly defended his Massachusetts policy, which virtually excludes homosexuals from becoming foster parents, and declared his opposition to an executive order banning discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

‘Take Me or Leave Me’

“What that said loud and clear,” said a prominent gay political aide, who requested anonymity, “is that your votes don’t matter. Dukakis is saying to the gay community--hey, take me or leave me. I’m not representing you. I’m representing me. What kind of message does that send?”

Satisfied Dukakis advisers said it sent a message of independence. “When people see him in that site or any other,” said communications director Leslie Dach, “it reminds people that he’s tough, that he makes up his mind and is decisive.”

His campaign has chosen to appear before constituency groups only rarely, a strategy designed in part to avoid appearances of pandering. “The schedule’s critical,” Dach said. “When you’re not going to a lot of conventions, not holding a lot of meetings with constituency groups, the public understands how you look at this process.

“It comes down not so much to what you do as what you don’t do.”

The campaign even took steps early in the primary process to limit the number of union members on Dukakis delegate slates.

The campaign’s director of delegate selection, Tad Devine, said that “there was never an across-the-board decision to exclude any particular group.” But, he acknowledged, “We tried in some cases to ensure that groups which exercised undue advantage could not use that advantage.”

Telephoned Each

Dukakis has on occasion mounted a concerted effort to win the support of key constituencies when it appeared such effort might tip the balance in a primary or caucus fight. In Iowa, Dukakis advisers targeted a number of labor unions and succeeded in obtaining the endorsement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees council there after Dukakis himself telephoned each of its 13 members just before they walked into their endorsement meeting.

And, in Michigan, in attempting to win over auto workers and Democratic Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr., Dukakis reconstituted his trade message to give new emphasis to his support of a Riegle-backed measure that strengthened the Administration’s ability to retaliate against unfair trade practices.

Meanwhile Dukakis surrogates, aides and part-time advisers have fanned out across the country to act as liaison to particular constituencies, appealing to women’s groups, labor, gay activists--and also local political officials and Greeks--in traditional campaign style.

But campaign manager Estrich contrasted the Dukakis constituency operation with that of her ex-boss, former Vice President Walter Mondale: The Mondale campaign maintained full-time women’s and labor branches; the Dukakis constituency department, she said, consists of one person: “And he has often been on leave.”

The anti-special interests strategy clearly has left some powerful groups feeling neglected.

“Dukakis doesn’t even talk about women’s issues,” said Molly Yard, president of the National Organization for Women. “Do you think you can win the support of women by never talking about women’s issues?”

“He certainly hasn’t gone out of the way to address our issues,” agreed Liz Smith, political director for the Amalgamated Clothing and Textiles Workers Union.

Gays Feel Wounded

The most lasting wound seems to be felt by gay activists, many of whom believe that Dukakis has not only failed to address issues of concern to them but has gone out of his way to be obstinate.

“There are people who are absolutely furious at Dukakis, at what they perceive from him to be animosity and obstruction,” said Urvashi Vaid, a spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Sources close to the campaign said that in late March, apprised of the trouble his stances were causing among gays, Dukakis considered issuing an executive order in Massachusetts banning discrimination on the basis of sexual preference--a move he had long ruled out on both the state and federal levels on the grounds that the Constitution already bans such discrimination.

Flip-Flop Issue

But after the candidate was sharply criticized for his alleged flip-flop on trade in Michigan, all thought of another turnabout was dropped, angering those who had been told privately that the change was coming.

Dukakis strategists say gays and lesbians will support Dukakis in the general election. As they compare Dukakis’ record to that of Vice President George Bush, argued Elaine Noble, a former Boston city official, “the uphill battle will ease . . . people will begin to smell a winner.”

For the same reason, other Democratic groups are also likely to enlist with Dukakis in the fall. Compared to Bush, Dukakis is the only choice, Dukakis strategists say. Mahe, the Republican consultant, concedes that “with the possible exception of gays, everybody’s under the tent.”

There is still the question of how enthusiastic the support will be. Beckel, the former Mondale campaign manager, suggested that many gay voters would choose not to participate rather than back a candidate whose positions they consider bigoted.

But officials of a wide range of women’s organizations and trade unions, some of them initially uneasy at Dukakis’ broad-brush approach, said they were confident their members and supporters would support Dukakis at least as enthusiastically as they had Mondale.

Demonstrates Commitment

Although Dukakis did not mount a vigorous effort to seek their endorsements, they said, his record as governor of Massachusetts and the issues he has emphasized in his presidential campaign--particularly support for universal health care and expanded day-care programs--demonstrated commitment to concerns important to them.

“He’s done a different kind of reaching out . . . “ said Irene Natividad, president of the National Women’s Political Caucus and a strong Dukakis supporter. “He does it by signals and by promoting his overall program.”

At a meeting last summer with top American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees officers, Dukakis “didn’t promise any new programs. He didn’t promise any new initiatives,” Phil Sparks, a spokesman for the union, said. “He simply said, look at me as governor.” The union this summer will send more delegates to the Democratic convention in Atlanta than it did to San Francisco four years ago--most of them for Dukakis.

The last hurdle for Dukakis and his party’s constituency groups is the drafting of the Democratic Party platform.

Women’s activists said there will be a fight if the Democratic platform committee attempts to end party commitments to an equal rights amendment, to a pro-choice position on abortion and to pay equity, as Kirk has suggested. Such a squabble is considered unlikely because Dukakis supports those positions.

Want Executive Order

But gay activists would like a commitment to an executive order banning discrimination. Some unions, including the textile workers, would like more specific positions on trade.

“If the consensus for a broad general platform starts to fall apart,” said Smith, the union’s political director, “we’ll fight for (our positions), too.”

“I think they’re going to press their agenda on him,” said Julie Weeks, a Republican political consultant and director of Market Opinion Research. “I think Democratic constituency groups may not realize the importance of toning down their demands.”