Jackson Aides Divided on Issue of Party Unity : Some Argue He Should Fight Hard for Place on Ticket, Others Urge Caution in Picking Battles

When the Rev. Jesse Jackson convened his inner circle of advisers here last weekend, the post-primary strategy session quickly bared the conflicting priorities and expectations that have coexisted uneasily within the Jackson camp.

As Jackson listened impassively, the advisers from what have essentially become two opposing camps stated their cases.

One group argued that Jackson’s battles are not over, and that he stands to gain important ground before the convention if he forces the party’s hand by fighting for the vice presidential nomination and other important concessions all the way to next month’s Democratic National Convention.

Some Advise Caution

The other side counseled caution, for fear that too much divisiveness could hand the election to Vice President George Bush and destroy the credibility that Jackson has built during his second run for the White House.

“There were no weak knees in there,” said Ron Brown, the former Democratic National Committee vice chairman who is coordinating Jackson’s convention strategy. Former New Mexico Gov. Toney Anaya said he argued that Jackson should not be “too timid. . . . Let’s not be scared off by this talk of splitting up the party.”

After the four-hour meeting, the candidate stayed behind with a few trusted aides, pondering his alternatives but unable to make up his mind.

Jackson still asserts, for public consumption, that he is an active candidate for President. But his more realistic goal, now that Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis has locked up the nomination, is to ensure that his candidacy makes a lasting mark on the party’s and the nation’s priorities. Jackson also must consider what strategy puts him in the best position for a future presidential bid, should he decide to make one.

Jackson insists that his crucial decisions over the next few weeks will be governed not by “what Jesse wants”--a measure, in raw and conventional terms, of his political clout as the second-place finisher--but the larger issue of “what my constituency has earned.”

Looking for a Signal

That constituency is his best leverage, because some Democratic leaders consider it critical to a Dukakis victory in November. Jackson’s most ardent supporters are looking to the Chicago clergyman for a signal as to whether the party has been fair to him and to them.

Even as polls are indicating that having Jackson on his ticket could hurt Dukakis’ chances, the issue of whether Jackson should be given the second spot has taken on tremendous symbolism with some of his oldest backers, among them some of the advisers who favor the confrontational strategy. They say that Jackson delivered 2 million newly registered voters to the ailing Democratic Party in 1984 and, in return, all he got was a chance to make a conciliatory speech at the San Francisco convention.

This time around, with an even larger base of support, they want a bigger payoff for their efforts.

Said one black activist who has worked in both of Jackson’s campaigns: “He has got to have something tangible to show his constituency. He cannot come out of it this time with a prime-time speech. . . . (Jackson supporters) really see this as a historical event. This time, we’re going to get something.”

Endorsement by Caucus

Fueling this sentiment was the Congressional Black Caucus’ endorsement of Jackson for vice president on Wednesday. Said Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.): “The truth of the matter is that in all fairness to Rev. Jackson, it would be wrong not to consider him as the front-runner for vice president.”

He also must decide how hard to prod Dukakis and the Democrats on issues central to his campaign. The party has agreed, under pressure from Jackson, to support declaring South Africa a terrorist state, a move that would place the Pretoria government in the same category as nations such as Iran and Libya. Still to be seen is whether he will try to force the party to support a tax increase and sharp military spending cuts--both of which are positions for which Democrats have suffered in the past.

Jackson is turning, as he always has, to key supporters for advice. But with the broader national base that his campaign has built, that group expanded far beyond its original core of black activists, such as Los Angeles Assemblywoman Maxine Waters and Richard Hatcher, the former mayor of Gary, Ind.

Now among the dozens with whom he consults regularly are some well schooled in exercising influence within the party’s most traditional structures, the same orthodoxy that Jackson’s original supporters defied. Among them: Bert Lance, White House budget director during the Jimmy Carter Administration and former Democratic National Committee Chairman John C. White. Although not unanimous, these advisers tend to be more pragmatic, and more focused on the goal of putting a Democrat in the White House next year.

The natural differences within Jackson’s broadened coalition, growing more evident as Jackson’s focus has shifted, can be seen in the positions of the two people who co-chaired his California campaign, Assemblywoman Waters and Assemblyman Tom Bates (D-Oakland).

Threatens on Vote

Waters has been one of the strongest supporters of Jackson’s making a vice presidential bid, and has threatened not to vote for the Democratic ticket unless she is satisfied that her candidate has been treated fairly.

“The ball is in Dukakis’ court,” Waters said. “It is up to Dukakis to make some offers to Jesse Jackson.” Asked whether Jackson’s backers might otherwise be alienated, she answered: “Absolutely.”

Bates, meanwhile, argues for a more conciliatory approach on Jackson’s part. “It is my hope that he would move toward trying as best he can to influence the convention, and then close ranks after that,” Bates said.

Jackson already has forced his opponents, both Dukakis and Bush, to take stronger positions on such issues as fighting drugs, offshore drilling and policy toward South Africa, Bates said. “He has won. He has been on the high road. He needs to recognize his victories,” Bates added. “He needs to play a positive role, rather than look, somehow or another, like a poor loser.”

Disagreement ‘Healthy’

Jackson insisted in an interview that such disagreement is “healthy. That’s a part of the decision process. . . . That is a tremendous body of people out of which great thought can ferment.”

While the debate rages around him, all sides realize that the final strategy will be of Jackson’s own choosing.

Lance, who is characterized as one of the voices urging restraint, said: “What he decides and how he decides are up to him. He has all the instincts, and all the abilities and all the knowledge to make that decision.”

Hatcher, whose association with Jackson goes back decades and who is said to have weighed in on the other side, agrees with Lance on this point: “More than almost anyone else I know, Rev. Jackson reaches out and actively seeks the advice of a broad spectrum, (but) in the final analysis, he is responsible for his own life, and will make his own judgment.”