Be Honest About Why Jackson Is Denied

What if Rep. Pat Schroeder (among the original Democratic presidential hopefuls) or former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick (among Republicans) had actually run in her respective party primaries this year and repeatedly won more contests than anyone except the eventual nominee? What if either one had raised her share of the vote dramatically and had shown what even begrudging pundits concede has been impressive personal growth and self-discipline? What if she had been widely acknowledged as having raised more specifics and substance than Gov. Michael S. Dukakis and Vice President George Bush have, come from a state rich in Electoral College votes while also able to claim coming from the South, and politically added to--not duplicated--the presidential nominee? Would either major party dare deny her its vice presidential nomination?

Hardly.

The Republican right would not stand still for rejecting Kirkpatrick had she so proved herself.

And women’s organizations, peace activists, new- and old-style liberals and other factions of the tenuous Democratic coalition would likely make a shambles of the Atlanta convention if Schroeder were passed up after having thus proved herself.

If Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) or Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa) had similarly proved himself and then had been passed over for the vice presidential slot, cries and news columns about rampant anti-Semitism, bigotry and worse would resound from New York to Los Angeles.

Why, then, with Jesse Jackson’s demonstrated vote-getting and widely recognized personal development this year, is it just about certain that he will not be tapped to be Dukakis’ running mate? That would seem to be a foregone conclusion despite the continuing pretenses otherwise by both men and most other Democratic bigwigs.

The hard-nosed reality is that too much of our society is not ready even late in the 20th Century for a black in the second slot of a national ticket. Or, as headlined last week over a new nationwide poll of voters: “Jackson Hurts Ticket.”

Yes, objections can be heard to various Jackson policy stands and his personality or style--just as with every candidate.

But hypocrisy is added to not-so-latent racism if we are not honest about the main, if mostly silent, reason he will not be on the Democratic ticket to be acclaimed in Atlanta.

The racial barrier--the unwillingness of so many voters to decide on the merits and minuses of a presidential ticket without regard to the skin color of the running mate--will never be overcome if we do not face up to what is actually working its will among us.

Jackson’s fairly steadily increasing vote as the recent primaries moved along, as well as compared to four years ago, hints that we may be making snail-like headway against political racism. But such headway is seen still only barely among Democrats, and is likely even less among the Republican rank-and-file and the independents.

Jackson this spring more than doubled his 1984 vote among whites. Or, looked at another way, almost one-third of his total votes this time came from whites--up from one-fifth in 1984.

His support among younger voters was even better. In fact, among all voters under 30 he outpolled Dukakis--38% to 35%--according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. In contrast, with voters over age 60 Dukakis prevailed 53% to 19%.

A tough reality for blacks is that political effectiveness on their own behalf has grown with staying engaged and steadily building their voter turnout, not in sitting it out after even a major setback and letting frustration erode their voting ranks.

Another hard fact for both blacks and Democratic decision-makers is the prospect of black defections because Jackson is left off the ticket. As hurtful as those could be, they are not likely to be nearly as sizable and decisive as white defections if he is on it.

The political and moral trade-offs in all this for Dukakis, Jackson and directly interested voters are rigorous. But politics remains a laggard art even at best, and cannot successfully be overloaded with tasks that would best be handled through other channels and initiatives.

In addition, would blacks and Jackson (still only 46 years old), much less the country, really be best served if he were to submit to--or disregard--the historically humbling immobility of the vice president’s role?

His particular talents, the black community and the necessary disciplines for an effective national administration would not be well served by any of that.

Having to settle for either the racism deferred to by passing over Jackson after his remarkable evolution through the primaries this year or the terminal negatives that seem to ensue from his being put on the ticket is hardly a happy prospect.

But the fault, dear patriot, is not in the stars or the country’s past or even our much-maligned politics, but in ourselves. And it is especially pernicious if we try to ignore it.