Now, Bush’s Label May Be ‘Winner’

I suspect conservatives were both happy and relieved by the time it was over. Gov. Michael S. Dukakis had not scored his much-needed “home run.” Vice President George Bush had maintained his lead, perhaps even increased it. The immediate response from the networks and even one or two instant polls suggested a clear Bush win. And with unaccustomed decisiveness, Bush rejected further debates and therefore limited Dukakis’ future scoring opportunities. It now seems probable that Bush is headed for victory in November.

The vice president’s debate performance in Los Angeles was a great improvement over his first outing in Winston-Salem, N.C. He was less flustered and spoke mostly in sentences rather than gobbled phrases. He was also much clearer--in Winston-Salem, he often seemed to be addressing Washington Beltway insiders. Dukakis was, as always, the more fluent performer and he conveyed the impression that he is the more knowledgeable of the two candidates. But this may not have helped him.

As one well-known conservative columnist said after the debate, you couldn’t really remember anything that Dukakis had said, except that he would make “tough choices.” (Is this the new code phrase for tax increases?) But it was easy to recall Bush’s litany: He was for the death penalty and against activist judges; he opposed tax increases, whereas Dukakis would unleash a “conventional force army” of IRS agents. In foreign affairs, Bush’s philosophy was one of “peace through strength” rather than unilateral concession. In short, and unlike Dukakis, he was not a “liberal.”

On the matter of ideology, or political philosophy, Dukakis seemed to be caught in a trap, as he has ever since the Republicans struck back at their convention. He tried, ineffectively, to sidestep the question of what “values” determine his vision of the office he is seeking by claiming that “labels” are “meaningless.” He added: “I don’t think these labels mean a thing.” Yet obviously this is not true. As last year’s campaign against Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork showed, Democrats are label-happy when the occasion suits them.

Dukakis himself understood the problem. At one point he rightly said that “We have two very different visions.” He just didn’t want that difference to be labeled--even with labels that he has applied to himself. Like most liberals, Dukakis prefers the illusion that the positions he adopts on issues are ad hoc and unpredictable and do not add up to a consistent, identifiable philosophy.

Dukakis’ problem is that his philosophy--essentially one of unlimited government disguised as the search for pragmatism and competence--is popular enough in Massachusetts to get him elected governor, but (probably) unpopular enough in the country as a whole to ensure his defeat as presidential candidate. If Dukakis thought otherwise, he would have “labeled” Bush a conservative by now. But he knows this is not unpopular. For this reason, the issue of Dukakis’ “values” has been a winning one for Bush and he has effectively exploited it.

Some members of the press have responded to this by deploring Bush’s “negative campaigning.” They say that the “real issues,” which almost always turn out to be the budget deficit and the need for higher taxes, are being neglected. It is as though the press wants not only to set the political agenda (an ambition that Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood proudly proclaimed in a recent column) but also to enjoy exclusive rights to “label” the candidates. Bush has spoiled this by butting in with labels of his own--”liberal” for example, rather than the preferred “pragmatist.”

Conservatives have been waiting all fall for Bush to say this or something like it. He approached the topic Thursday night when he parried a question deploring the turn that the campaign has taken. He had traveled across Illinois discussing farm policy, he said, but none of this had been reported. Instead, the media were forever tracking the latest polls. Bush was effective in including Dukakis at this point--he too has issued position papers galore--in a united front against reporters who turned the campaign into a horse race and then complained that it is “issueless.”

I’m in Dukakis’ corner on the “likability” question--a phony issue if there ever was one. Yes, Bush is probably the more likable of the two. But since when did qualifications for the presidency include winning a congeniality contest? Ronald Reagan is the personification of congeniality, but has this made him a better President? Many conservatives think it has been his great weakness. He has often seemed driven above all by a desire to stay popular, his policies sometimes undermined by a desire to do whatever is needed to get good press. If anything, the press should be deploring, not encouraging, this new ethic of niceness.

The Soviets no doubt also find the vice president likable--and to their liking, judging by the number of times he brought up arms control as the sine qua non of foreign policy. Soviet publications have been neutral in their comments on this year’s election, but I would be surprised if they are not quietly rooting for Bush. The big item on next year’s foreign-policy agenda will be a continuation of the strategic arms reduction talks, possibly culminating in a 50% reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. (This will be accompanied by a promised Soviet reduction of comparable size.) With his relative immunity from right-wing criticism, Bush is far more likely than Dukakis to be able to complete such a deal.

Conservatives, therefore, are now confident about November but not at all confident about a Bush presidency. The three achievements that will keep conservatives happy are a deployed strategic defense, the appointment of pro-life judges and no new taxes. Bush has waffled on SDI, and promised “no litmus tests” on judges. On taxes, Dukakis was right to point out that the Reagan-Bush Administration has raised taxes as often as it has cut them.